Evaluating the costs of <i>Escherichia coli</i> bloodstream infections: a population-based cohort study in a large metropolitan Canadian region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives We evaluated the costs of susceptible and resistant Escherichia coli bloodstream infections (BSIs) in adults. Secondary outcomes were the impact of BSI on length of stay (LOS), readmissions and death. Methods We examined a population-based retrospective cohort of blood cultures from 2011 to 2018 in Calgary, Canada, linked to microcosting and gross costing data. Propensity score matching was completed, and costs were compared between no BSI and E. coli BSI over 90 days using linear regression. Results A total of 4581 BSIs in 89 673 adults experienced E. coli bacteraemia during the study period. The mean cost of an E. coli BSI at 90 days was $39 072 (SD: $95 747) in adults. Ceftriaxone-resistant (CRO-R) E. coli, resistant to fluoroquinolones (FQ) and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, compared with susceptible E. coli BSI resulted in the greatest mean cost at $53 899 and the highest odds of readmission, increased LOS, and death. Conclusions E. coli BSI is associated with substantial costs. Total cost differences were highest in those with CRO-R E. coli with resistance to FQ and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Over the study period, bacteraemia secondary to these strains alone, added over $9 million to costs for healthcare in the Calgary Zone.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".