501. Risk of Infection in Persons Colonized with Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriales (CPE) in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background We aimed to assess the risk of subsequent infection among patients colonized by CPE. Methods The Toronto Invasive Bacterial Diseases Network (TIBDN) has conducted population-based surveillance for CPE colonization/infection in Toronto and Peel region, Ontario, Canada, since CPE were first identified (2007). All laboratories report all CPE isolates to TIBDN. Clinical data are collected via patient interview and hospital chart review. Initially colonized patients are followed for 5y; subsequent CPE infection is defined as an episode with onset >3 days after initial detection of CPE colonization that meets National Healthcare Safety Network criteria for infection with a clinical isolate of CPE. Results From 2007 to 2018, 790 persons with CPE colonization/infection were identified. Among 364 cases colonized at identification, 42 (12%) subsequently had at least one clinical isolate, and 23 (6%) had an infection: 8 with bacteremia (primary or secondary), 7 UTI, 5 pneumonia, and 3 other. The median time from identification of colonization to infection was 21 days (IQR 7–38), with a probability of developing an infection of 7% at 3 months, and 18% by 3 years (figure). In 305 cases with data available to date, older persons, those admitted to the ICU, and those with current/recent invasive medical devices were more likely to develop infection (table). Gender, underlying conditions and other procedures were not associated with risk of infection. There was a trend to infections being more likely in patients colonized with K. pneumoniae (52% vs. 35%, P = 0.13). Conclusion The risk of subsequent infection in our cohort was 18%, with highest risk in the first 3 months; most infections occurred in patients requiring intensive care unit admission and invasive medical devices. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".