Research of Associated Resistance to Antimicrobial Agents of Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamases Escherichia Coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae Strains Isolated in Senegal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Some strains of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae produce Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBL) may be responsible for various infections such as urinary infections. These Sick people are treated in the very serious cases by association antibiotics to class to betalactamins, aminosids and quinolons. But proliferation of multi-drug resistant strains involves decreasing therapeutic success. That’s why epidemiological study must be done in all laboratories of bacteriology. Purpose: The aim of the study was to research the resistance phenotypes of our E. coli and K. pneumoniae ESBL strains compared to others families of antibiotics. Material and methods: Thirty two (32) Extended Spectrum betalactamases E. coli and K. pneumoniae strains isolated from either hospitalized patients or sick people who came for consultation were studied. Susceptibility to antimicrobial agents was determined using an antibiotic disk (Bio-Rad) diffusion method on Mueller-Hinton agar (Bio-Rad). The results were interpreted according to the Standards of the French Antibiogram Committee (CA-SFM). Results: The study showed that most of these strains were multi-drug resistant. They were resistant to many beta-lactamines antibiotics. E. coli strains were also resistant at 70,34% to aminosids, at 96,72% to quinolons, at 58,3% to cotrimoxazol, at 26,1% to chloramphénicol and at 21,4% to colistin ; about K. pneumoniae, they were resistant at 72,6% to aminosids, at 88,95% to quinolons, at 86,7% to cotrimoxazol, at 44,4% to chloramphénicol and at 25% to colistin. But all these strains were sensitive at 100% to l’imipenem.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".