MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170922870 · doi:10.1093/jacamr/dlab067

<i>In vitro</i> activity of ceftazidime/avibactam against clinical isolates of Enterobacterales and <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> from Middle Eastern and African countries: ATLAS global surveillance programme 2015–18

2021· article· en· W3170922870 on OpenAlexaff
James A. Karlowsky, Samuel K. Bouchillon, Ramy El Mahdy Kotb, Naglaa Mohamed, Gregory G. Stone, Daniel F. Sahm

Bibliographic record

VenueJAC-Antimicrobial Resistance · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersPfizer
KeywordsCeftazidime/avibactamPseudomonas aeruginosaAtlas (anatomy)MicrobiologyBiologyCeftazidimeBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives To assess the in vitro activity of ceftazidime/avibactam against a recent, 2015–18, collection of clinical isolates of Gram-negative bacilli from Middle Eastern and African countries with a focus on isolates from ICUs and with MDR and difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) phenotypes. Methods Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 4608 isolates of Enterobacterales (997 isolates from ICU patients) and 1358 isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (374 isolates from ICU patients) was performed by CLSI broth microdilution methodology in a central laboratory. MICs were interpreted using both CLSI (2020) and EUCAST (2020) MIC breakpoints. Results Most isolates of Enterobacterales (Middle East: ICU, 99.1% susceptible, non-ICU, 99.1%; Africa: ICU, 96.9% susceptible, non-ICU, 98.3%) and P. aeruginosa (Middle East: ICU, 93.4%, non-ICU, 92.1%; Africa: ICU, 89.8%; non-ICU, 94.1%) were susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam. Applying CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints, MDR rates were similar for Enterobacterales (27.8%–36.0% of isolates) and P. aeruginosa (25.0%–36.4%) while DTR rates were lower for Enterobacterales (1.6%–1.8%) than for P. aeruginosa (5.2%–7.4%). Percentage susceptible rates for ceftazidime/avibactam for MDR Enterobacterales were 96.8%–97.5% (Middle East) and 92.5%–94.3% (Africa) while rates for P. aeruginosa were 70.1%–80.0% (Middle East) and 69.5%–78.2% (Africa). 60.5%–65.8% (Middle East) and 38.9%–52.2% (Africa) of isolates of Enterobacterales with DTR phenotypes were ceftazidime/avibactam susceptible as were 29.2%–31.1% (Middle East) and 28.2%–35.8% (Africa) of DTR P. aeruginosa. Conclusions Overall, the isolates of Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa tested from Middle Eastern and African countries were highly susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam. Most MDR and many DTR isolates of Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAC-Antimicrobial ResistanceSame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207