Antibiotic use and hygiene interact to influence the distribution of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in low-income communities in Guatemala
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine the effects of poor sanitation and hygiene on the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, we surveyed households in two rural and two urban communities in Guatemala (N = 196 randomly selected households). One adult (≥ 18-years old) and, when available, one child (≤ 5 years-old) provided a stool sample. Up to 48 presumptive Escherichia coli isolates were collected from each stool sample (n = 21,256 total) and were subjected to breakpoint assays for ten antibiotics. Mixed-effects logistic models were used to identify potential factors influencing the likelihood of harboring antibiotic-resistant bacteria. For nine out of ten antibiotics, the odds of detecting resistant bacteria decreased by ~ 32% (odds ratios, OR 0.53-0.8, P < 0.001) for every unit of improvement of a hygiene scale. Hygiene differences between households had a greater impact on prevalence compared to antibiotic use differences. The likelihood of detecting resistant isolates was lower for five antibiotics among households that boiled raw milk before consumption (OR 0.31-0.69), and higher for nine antibiotics in urban households (OR > 1.89-9.6). Poor hygiene conditions likely obscure effects of individual antibiotic use, presumably due to enhanced microbial transmission. Consequently, efforts to improve antibiotic stewardship should be coupled with improving hygiene conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".