Bacterial Profile and Antibiotic Resistance among Cancer Patients with Urinary Tract Infection in a National Tertiary Cancer Hospital of Nepal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer patients are at high risk of antibiotic resistant bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs). In this study, we assessed the bacterial profile and antibiotic resistance among cancer patients suspected of UTI in B.P. Koirala Memorial Cancer Hospital in Nepal through a cross-sectional study with routinely collected data. All cancer patients who had a recorded urine culture between July 2018–June 2019 were included in the study. Out of 308 patients who had undergone culture, 73 (24%) of samples had bacterial growth. The most common organisms isolated were E. coli (58%), Staphylococcus (11%) and Klebsiella (10%). These bacteria had undergone susceptibility testing to 27 different antibiotics in various proportions. Of the limited antibiotic testing levels, nitrofurantoin (54/66, 82%) and amikacin (30/51, 59%) were the most common. Among those tested, there were high levels of resistance to antibiotics in the “Access” and “Watch” groups of antibiotics (2019 WHO classification). In the “Reserve” group, both antibiotics showed resistance (polymyxin 15%, tigecycline 8%). Multidrug resistance was seen among 89% of the positive culture samples. This calls for urgent measures to optimize the use of antibiotics in UTI care at policy and health facility levels through stewardship to prevent further augmentation of antibiotic resistance among cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".