MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415396992 · doi:10.1101/2025.10.20.25338358

Apramycin resistance in bacteria isolated from humans, a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· W4415396992 on OpenAlexaff
J. Scott Weese, H. Weese

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typereview
Language
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepurposingAntibiotic resistanceBacteriaDrug resistanceAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Apramycin is an aminoglycoside antimicrobial that has been used in veterinary medicine since the 1980s but not licensed for human medicine. Because it is not impacted by common aminoglycoside resistance mechanisms, there is interest in repurposing the drug for use in humans, as a treatment of multidrug resistant Gram negative bacterial infections. Gap Statement The prevalence and factors associated with apramycin resistance in bacteria isolated from humans has received limited study but is important foundational information for considering repurposing apramycin for use in humans. Aim To systematically review and analyze data pertaining to apramycin resistance in bacteria isolated from humans and to identify knowledge gaps, to inform work evaluating the potential for re-purposing of apramycin for clinical use in humans. Methodology A systematic review was performed to evaluate apramycin resistance in bacteria isolated from humans. Results A total of 1626 references were identified during the search, with 34 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. Pooled estimates for apramycin resistance were 6% (95% CI 1-12%) for E. coli, 1% (0-3%) for Acinetobacter spp, 2% (0-5%) for Enterobacter spp, 7% (2-15%) for Klebsiella spp, 4% (0-13%) for Pseudomonas and 0% (0-0%) for Salmonella spp. Multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression identified no effect of year ( P =0.36), bacterial species (all P >0.19), geographic region (all P >0.13) or enrollment of known carbapenem-resistant isolates ( P =0.44). The only significant variable was datasets that used known gentamicin-resistant isolates ( P =0.003). Conclusion Despite nearly 50 years of apramycin use in animals, apramycin resistance was identified in bacteria of human origin but was rare, supporting the potential value of re-purposing this drug for use in humans and suggesting that there is limited spillover of resistance from veterinary and agricultural use of apramycin.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.039
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venuemedRxiv→Same topicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria→French-language works237,207→