A nested cohort 5-year Canadian surveillance of Gram-negative antimicrobial resistance for optimized antimicrobial therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyzed 5 years (2016-2020) of nested Canadian data from the Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends (SMART) to identify pathogen predominance and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) patterns of adult Gram-negative infections in Canadian health care and to complement other public surveillance programs and studies in Canada. A total of 6853 isolates were analyzed from medical (44%), surgical (18%), intensive care (22%) and emergency units (15%) and from respiratory tract (36%), intra-abdominal (25%), urinary tract (24%) and bloodstream (15%) infections. Overall, E. coli (36%), P. aeruginosa (18%) and K. pneumoniae (12%) were the most frequent isolates and P. aeruginosa was the most common respiratory pathogen. 18% of Enterobacterales species were ESBL positive. Collective susceptibility profiles showed that P. aeruginosa isolates were highly susceptible (> 95%) to ceftolozane/tazobactam and colistin, though markedly less susceptible (58-74%) to other antimicrobials tested. Multi-drug resistance (MDR) was present in 10% of P. aeruginosa isolates and was more frequent in those from respiratory infections and from ICU than non-ICU locations. Of P. aeruginosa isolates that were resistant to combinations of ceftazidime, piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem, 73-96% were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam over the period of the study. These national data can now be combined with clinical prediction rules and genomic data to enable expert antimicrobial stewardship applications and guide treatment policies to optimize adult patient care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".