42936 pathogens from Canadian hospitals: 10 years of results (2007–16) from the CANWARD surveillance study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The CANWARD surveillance study was established in 2007 to annually assess the in vitro susceptibilities of a variety of antimicrobial agents against bacterial pathogens isolated from patients receiving care in Canadian hospitals. METHODS: 42 936 pathogens were received and CLSI broth microdilution testing was performed on 37 355 bacterial isolates. Limited patient demographic data submitted with each isolate were collated and analysed. RESULTS: Of the isolates tested, 43.5%, 33.1%, 13.2% and 10.2% were from blood, respiratory, urine and wound specimens, respectively; 29.9%, 24.8%, 19.0%, 18.1% and 8.2% of isolates were from patients in medical wards, emergency rooms, ICUs, hospital clinics and surgical wards. Patient demographics associated with the isolates were: 54.6% male/45.4% female; 13.1% patients aged ≤17 years, 44.3% 18-64 years and 42.7% ≥65 years. The three most common pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (21.2%, both methicillin-susceptible and MRSA), Escherichia coli (19.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (9.0%). E. coli were most susceptible to meropenem and tigecycline (99.9%), ertapenem and colistin (99.8%), amikacin (99.7%) and ceftolozane/tazobactam and plazomicin (99.6%). Twenty-three percent of S. aureus were MRSA. MRSA were most susceptible to ceftobiprole, linezolid and telavancin (100%), daptomycin (99.9%), vancomycin (99.8%) and tigecycline (99.2%). P. aeruginosa were most susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam (98.3%) and colistin (95.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The CANWARD surveillance study has provided 10 years of reference antimicrobial susceptibility testing data on pathogens commonly causing infections in patients attending Canadian hospitals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".