MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Epidemiology of Non-O157 Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli in the Province of Alberta, Canada, from 2018 to 2021

2022· article· en· W4224216005 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Heather Glassman, Christina Ferrato, Linda Chui

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroorganisms · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEscherichia coli research studies
Canadian institutionsProvincial Laboratory of Public HealthUniversity of Alberta
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsSTX2SerotypeShiga toxinVirulenceEscherichia coliEpidemiologyMicrobiologyToxinBiologyMedicineVirologyGeneInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-O157 serogroups contribute significantly to the burden of disease caused by Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and have been underrecognized by traditional detection algorithms. We described the epidemiology of non-O157 STEC in Alberta, Canada for the period of 2018 to 2021. All non-O157 STEC isolated from clinical samples were submitted for serotyping and qPCR targeting the stx1 and stx2 genes. A total of 729 isolates were identified. Increased detection occurred over the summer months, peaking in July. Patients 18 years and younger made up 42.4% of cases, with 31.1% in those 0–9 years of age. There was a slight female predominance (399/729, 54.7%) A total of 50 different serogroups were detected; the most common were O26 (30.3%), O103 (15.9%), O111 (12.8%), O121 (11.0%), O118 (3.3%) and O71 (2.9%). These six serogroups made up 76.2% of all isolates. In total, 567 (77.8%) were positive for stx1, 114 (15.6%) were positive for stx2 and 48 (6.6%) were positive for both stx1 and stx2. A wide variety of non-O157 serogroups have been detected in Alberta, with the most frequent serogroups differing from other locations. These results highlight the need for further characterization of their virulence factors and clinical impact.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroorganismsSame topicEscherichia coli research studiesFrench-language works237,207