MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415686100 · doi:10.1093/inthealth/ihaf071

Global trends in travel-related antimicrobial resistance: a systematic review, 2020–2024

2025· article· en· W4415686100 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Georgina Tetteh-Ocloo, Alex Odoom, Nicholas T. K. D. Dayie, Eric S. Donkor

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFogarty International CenterNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsScopusAntibiotic resistanceGlobal healthDiversity (politics)AntimicrobialSoutheast asia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing global health threat, with international travel playing a key role in the spread of resistant bacteria. This systematic review examines trends in travel-associated AMR from 2020 to 2024. A search of PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science identified 10 studies involving 359 AMR isolates. Using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, the study quality was assessed and findings were synthesised to identify patterns in prevalence, diversity and geographic spread. Results revealed a consistent rise in travel-associated AMR, particularly from regions such as Southeast Asia and Africa, which acted as major sources of diverse resistant pathogens. These include extended spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli, multidrug-resistant (MDR) Corynebacterium diphtheriae and colistin-resistant Enterobacterales. The number of MDR strains increased over time, making up 15.3% of cases by 2024. Healthcare exposure during travel emerged as a significant risk factor. Overall, the prevalence and diversity of AMR bacteria linked to travel have risen steadily, highlighting the urgent need for global cooperation. Enhanced surveillance, antimicrobial stewardship, infection control measures and international collaboration are essential to curb the spread of these dangerous pathogens.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational HealthSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207