A Case-Control Study on the Association between Salmonella Bacteriuria and Cystoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, there is only one published report of an outbreak of urinary tract infections by Salmonella species after cystoscopy. Disinfection procedures for cystoscope have come into question. The current study aimed to determine the odds of developing Salmonella bacteriuria after cystoscopy. A retrospective case-control study was conducted on all patients with Salmonella species in urine (case) and blood (control) from 2017 to 2019 in 16 hospitals in Eastern Ontario, Canada. Eight of the 11 patients had cystoscopy prior to Salmonella bacteriuria; three of the 74 patients had urological procedures prior to Salmonella bacteremia, but none of their procedures were cystoscopy. The odds ratio of urological procedures with Salmonella bacteriuria was 63.1 (95% CI 10.9 to 366.6; p < 0.0001). In the bacteriuria group, the most frequently identified isolates were Salmonella enteritidis (n = 8), followed by Salmonella oranienburg, and Salmonella heidelberg. Seven of the S. enteritidis isolates had identical susceptibilities (ampicillin-sensitive; sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim-sensitive; ciprofloxacin intermediate). In the bacteremia group, the most frequently identified isolates were S. enteritidis (n = 22), followed by Salmonella typhi, S. heidelberg, S. oranienburg, and Salmonella typhimurium. The result suggested cystoscopy is a risk factor for Salmonella bacteriuria. Identification of Salmonella bacteriuria should prompt public health investigations of linkage between cystoscopy and Salmonella bacteriuria.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".