<i>Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i> treatment failure to the recommended antibiotic regimen—Québec, Canada, 2015–19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe Neisseria gonorrhoeae treatment failure to the recommended antimicrobial regimens (azithromycin, cefixime and ceftriaxone). METHODS: Our study was a longitudinal analysis of treatment failures from an observational open cohort of gonococcal infection cases collected in Québec, Canada (n = 2547) between September 2015 and December 2019. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire, direct case interviews and chart reviews. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using the agar dilution method. To be retained as a treatment failure, cases must have had (i) a laboratory-confirmed gonococcal infection; (ii) a documented treatment; (iii) a positive test of cure (TOC) performed within a defined period and (iv) no sexual contact (vaginal, oral or anal), even protected with a condom, between the beginning of treatment and the positive TOC. A broader definition, including suspected cases, was also examined. RESULTS: Among 1593 cases where a TOC was performed, 83 had a positive TOC: 11 were retained as treatment failure, and 6 were considered suspected cases (overall = 17/1593; 1.1%). Possible explanations for retained or suspected treatment failure included resistance to the antibiotics used for treatment (n = 1), pharyngeal infection (n = 9, of which 5 had been treated with ceftriaxone and 4 with other regimens); and azithromycin monotherapy (n = 1). Some cases had more than one potential explanation. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment failure occurred in 1.1% of cases of Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection for which a TOC was performed, including some cases of pharyngeal infection treated with ceftriaxone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".