MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410235393 · doi:10.1128/jcm.00128-25

Detection of ESBL-producing <i>Klebsiella oxytoca</i> complex with VITEK 2 system and screening cutoffs for implementing confirmatory tests

2025· article· en· W4410235393 on OpenAlexaff
Edgar I. Campos-Madueno, Gisele Peirano, Claudia Aldeia, C. Kocher, Laurent Poirel, Patrice Nordmann, Vincent Perreten, Johann Pitout, Andrea Endimiani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsCeftazidimeAztreonamCefotaximeKlebsiella oxytocaCefpodoximeMicrobiologyCeftriaxoneClinical microbiologyBeta-lactamaseCarbapenemMedicineKlebsiella pneumoniaeBiologyImipenemAntibioticsAntibiotic resistanceBacteriaEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Klebsiella oxytoca complex ( Ko C) are important nosocomial pathogens that can be reservoirs of transmissible extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) genes. Therefore, it is essential for clinical microbiology laboratories to distinguish between Ko C producing ESBLs (ESBL- Ko C) and those hyperproducing the natural OXY-type β-lactamases (hOXY- Ko C). We investigated the abilities of VITEK 2 with and without using the Advanced Expert System (AES) to detect ESBL producers among 44 well-characterized Ko C strains (including 11 ESBL- Ko C and 21 hOXY- Ko C). VITEK 2/AES showed 100% sensitivity (Se) and 64.7% specificity (Sp), whereas the VITEK 2 coupled by the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) ESBL confirmatory tests (ESBL-CTs; i.e., disk-combination tests) showed 100% Se and 97.5% Sp to detect ESBL- Ko C. We also analyzed Ko C-specific screening cutoffs for ceftriaxone (CRO), cefpodoxime (CPD), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefotaxime (CTX), and aztreonam (ATM) to negate unnecessary ESBL-CTs. As a result, we propose the following screening cutoffs (minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] and inhibition zone diameter): CRO, >4 µg/mL and ≤16 mm; CPD, >4 µg/mL and ≤10 mm; CAZ, >1 µg/mL and ≤22 mm (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing [EUCAST] disk)/≤30 mm (CLSI disk); CTX, >4 µg/mL and ≤12 mm (EUCAST disk)/≤22 mm (CLSI disk); ATM, >1 µg/mL and ≤28 mm. Notably, all suggested cutoffs could assure 100% Se and high Sp/positive predictive values for our 44 Ko C strains. In conclusion, the AES performed poorly, while VITEK 2 with the CLSI ESBL-CTs yielded a reliable methodology to distinguish ESBL- Ko C from hOXY- Ko C. This study also proposed revised screening cutoffs for detecting ESBL- Ko C and reducing the unnecessary use of ESBL-CTs. IMPORTANCE Species within the Klebsiella oxytoca complex ( Ko C) are emerging clinical pathogens of increasing concern. These bacteria can acquire plasmid-mediated ESBL genes, seriously complicating antibiotic treatment and overall management of infected patients. Differentiating ESBL-producing from non-ESBL-producing Ko C isolates is therefore crucial. However, this task presents significant challenges for clinical laboratories. In this work, we showed that the automated VITEK 2 system equipped with its AES fails to differentiate the two groups of Ko C isolates. In contrast, VITEK 2 alone followed by the ESBL screen and phenotypic confirmatory tests provides accurate differentiation. Since this latter approach increases the diagnostic workload, we also proposed new screening cutoffs for key cephalosporins that may reduce the current high number of unnecessary confirmatory tests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207