Antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from peridomestic Rattus species: A scoping literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rattus spp. may acquire and disseminate antimicrobial resistant bacteria or antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize available research findings on AMR in Rattus spp. and to describe the size and scope of available literature on AMR epidemiology in Rattus spp. The review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The search focused on scientific peer-reviewed publications focusing on AMR in peridomestic Rattus spp. The review was limited to publications in English available in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus between 2000 and 2021. The results were summarized descriptively. Thirty-four studies conducted in twenty-one countries were included in this scoping review. Twelve bacterial species with AMR were identified with Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus being the two most commonly reported. The resistant bacteria were isolated from species of peridomestic Rattus spp. in which R. norvegicus and R. rattus were the two most commonly studied. Rats were also found to carry multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacteria including extended-spectrum beta (β)-lactamase (ESBL), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), colistin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CoRE), and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE). This scoping review suggests that peridomestic Rattus spp. can carry multiple antimicrobial resistant bacteria, indicating their potential to serve as reservoirs and spreaders of AMR thus posing a threat to human and animal health.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".