MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379095465

Feline urinary tract pathogens in western Canada: Prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance from 2012 to 2018.

2023· article· en· W4379095465 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian L Hansen-Jones, KE Hill, Naomi Cogger

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Medicine and Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmoxicillinClavulanic acidMicrobiologySulfamethoxazoleTrimethoprimAntimicrobialAntibiotic resistanceEnterococcusPopulationClindamycinAerobic bacteriaAnaerobic bacteriaBacteriaBiologyVeterinary medicineAntibioticsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the bacterial population and antimicrobial resistance of bacteria isolated from feline urine from 2012 to 2018 in the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Animals and procedure: IDEXX Reference Laboratories provided data from urine samples submitted from Alberta and British Columbia for aerobic culture and susceptibility testing from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2018. The analysis included 8084 bacterial isolates from 7522 cystocentesis samples, with at least 1000 colony-forming units per mL. Results: species to clindamycin, there was minimal change in the antimicrobial susceptibility of the 3 most commonly isolated bacteria over the study period. More than 85% of Gram-positive organisms were susceptible to amoxicillin with or without clavulanic acid, and > 85% of Gram-negative organisms were susceptible to amoxicillin with clavulanic acid and trimethoprim with sulfamethoxazole. Conclusion and clinical relevance: Treatment with amoxicillin, with or without clavulanic acid, may be considered for bacterial feline lower urinary tract disease in Alberta and British Columbia while awaiting culture results.

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 score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207