MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032793172 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2018-0161

Identification of drug-resistant phenotypes and resistance genes in <i>Enterococcus faecalis</i> isolates from animal feces originating in Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China

2020· article· en· W3032793172 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Li Zhang, Hui Li, Jingwen Gao, Jianpeng Gao, Dianhua Wei, Yayin Qi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTetracyclineMicrobiologyBiologyPenicillinErythromycinAmpicillinEnterococcus faecalisFecesCiprofloxacinVancomycinAntibiotic resistanceAmoxicillinAntibioticsEnterococcusGeneBacteriaEscherichia coliStaphylococcus aureusGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the presence and the antibiotic resistance patterns of Enterococcus faecalis isolated from the feces of 285 animals. Polymerase chain reaction tests verified the presence of E. faecalis from 49 pigs, 20 cows, 174 sheep, 17 horses, 21 chickens, and four dung beetles. Bacterial strains from different animals showed differences in susceptibility and resistance to the tested antimicrobials. The isolates exhibited resistance to ampicillin (6.32%), ciprofloxacin (40.00%), nitrofurantoin (1.40%), erythromycin (54.04%), streptomycin (82.11%), tetracycline (45.26%), amoxicillin (64.91%), penicillin (92.28%), and vancomycin (0.35%). The resistant strains also possessed varying complements of resistance genes including tem (77.89%), tetM (33.68%), gyrA (37.54%), parC (34.74%), aph(3′)-III (22.46%), aac(6′)/aph2″ (10.88%), and ant(6′)-I (8.42%). Genes for vancomycin resistance (vanB and vanC) and erythromycin resistance (mefA) were not detected. These results indicate high levels of antibiotic resistance among the isolates, although no positive correlation was observed between resistance genes and antibiotic resistance spectrum.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusFrench-language works237,207