Recovery of meticillin‐resistant <i>Staphylococcus</i> species from pet‐grooming salons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meticillin-resistant (MR) staphylococcal species have been cultured from veterinary hospital environments and veterinary instruments. Pet-grooming salon environments and grooming tools may pose a risk for dissemination of MR staphylococcal bacteria into the pet population. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to investigate the frequency of MR staphylococcal colonization of pet-grooming salons and to collect information regarding cleaning procedures in grooming salons. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A nonrandomized, observational study was performed in 2018. Locations inside 19 grooming salons near Tacoma, WA, USA, were sampled and selectively cultured for MR, coagulase-positive staphylococci. Sampled sites included clipper blades and handles, leashes, rims of bathtub drains, insides of shampoo caps, and bathtub spray hoses or faucet handles. Grooming salons were asked to complete surveys regarding their cleaning practices. RESULTS: Meticillin-resistant coagulase-positive staphylococci were isolated from 12 of 19 grooming salons and 25 of 112 total samples. Meticillin-resistant S. pseudintermedius, S. aureus and S. schleiferi were isolated from multiple salons, most commonly from electric clipper blades, clipper handles and grooming leashes. No statistically significant correlations were identified between cleaning practices and the isolation of MR coagulase-positive staphylococci. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Clipper blades, clipper handles and leashes are potential fomites for MR staphylococci in a grooming salon; increased disinfection practices for these items are indicated. A prospective, controlled, large-scale study is warranted to examine the effect of grooming salon hygiene practices on the isolation of MR staphylococci in salons.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".