Antimicrobial Resistance of Human <i>Campylobacter</i> Species Infections in Saskatchewan, Canada (1999–2006): A Historical Provincial Collection of All Reported Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To describe a historical baseline of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profiles for human clinical Campylobacter species isolates obtained by laboratory surveillance in the province of Saskatchewan from 1999 to 2006; to determine if there were differences in resistance between Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli; and to determine if there were changes in the annual resistance levels in the two species. One thousand three hundred seventy-eight Campylobacter isolates were subjected to antimicrobial susceptibility testing using the E-test method. Annual resistance levels in C. jejuni and C. coli were compared using logistic regression models. One thousand two hundred (87.1%) isolates were C. jejuni and 129 (9.4%) were C. coli. Resistance in C. jejuni isolates included ciprofloxacin (CIP: 9.4%), erythromycin (ERY: 0.5%), and tetracycline (33.3%). CIP resistance in C. jejuni was higher in 1999 (15.5%, odds ratio [OR] = 3.96, p = 0.01), 2000 (12.7%, OR = 3.10, p = 0.01), 2005 (10.2%, OR = 2.47, p = 0.05), and 2006 (13.0%, OR = 3.22, p = 0.01) compared with 2004 (4.4%). C. coli had significantly higher CIP resistance (15.5%, OR = 1.78, p = 0.03), ERY resistance (13.2%, OR = 60.12, p < 0.01), multidrug resistance (2.3%, OR = 36.29, p < 0.01), and CIP-ERY resistance (3.1%, OR = 50.23, p < 0.01) compared with C. jejuni. This represents the first and most current report of AMR of the collective human Campylobacter isolates from a province in Canada and provides a baseline against which current and future resistance patterns can be compared. Fluoroquinolone resistance in C. jejuni isolates fluctuated from 1999 to 2006, including an increased prevalence in 2005–2006, while macrolide/lincosamide resistance remained very low. Human clinical C. jejuni isolates from Saskatchewan demonstrated resistance to multiple antimicrobials but had significantly less fluoroquinolone and macrolide resistance than C. coli isolates.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".