MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378901303 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v49i05a09

Healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance in Canadian acute care hospitals, 2017–2021

2023· article· en· W4378901303 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-JustineHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversité de MontréalIWK Health CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of OttawaPublic Health Agency of CanadaMcMaster UniversityJewish General HospitalPublic Health AgencyBC Children's HospitalHamilton Health SciencesDartmouth College
KeywordsCandida aurisMedicineInfection controlAcute careVancomycin-resistant EnterococcusAntimicrobialIncidence (geometry)Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusClostridioidesAntibiotic resistanceHealth careEmergency medicineInternal medicineIntensive care medicineStaphylococcus aureusAntifungalMicrobiologyVancomycinAntibioticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: 2012-2021) using surveillance and laboratory data submitted by hospitals to the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program (CNISP) and by provincial laboratories to the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML). Methods: ) surveillance was initiated in 2019 by CNISP and in 2012 by the NML. Case counts, rates, outcomes, molecular characterization and antimicrobial resistance profiles are presented. Results: isolates were identified in Canada from 2012 to 2021, with the majority from Western Canada (68%). Conclusion: isolates were identified from 2012 to 2021. Reporting standardized surveillance data and the consistent application of infection prevention and control practises in acute care hospitals are critical to help decrease the burden of HAIs and AMR in Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease ReportSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207