Antibiotic Use Prior to Hospital Presentation Among Individuals With Suspected Enteric Fever in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Antibiotic use prior to seeking care at a hospital may reduce the sensitivity of blood culture for enteric fever, with implications for both clinical care and surveillance. The Surveillance for Enteric Fever in Asia Project (SEAP) is a prospective study of enteric fever incidence in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Nested within SEAP, we evaluated the accuracy of self-reported antibiotic use and investigated the association between antibiotic use and blood culture positivity. Methods Between November 2016 and April 2019, we collected urine samples among a subset of SEAP participants to test for antibiotic use prior to the hospital visit using an antibacterial activity assay. All participants were asked about recent antibiotic use and had a blood culture performed. We used mixed-effect logit models to evaluate the effect of antimicrobial use on blood culture positivity, adjusted for markers of disease severity. Results We enrolled 2939 patients with suspected enteric fever. Antibiotics were detected in 39% (1145/2939) of urine samples. The correlation between measured and reported antibiotic use was modest (κ = 0.72). After adjusting for disease severity, patients with antibiotics in their urine were slightly more likely to be blood culture positive for enteric fever; however, the effect was not statistically significant (prevalence ratio, 1.22 [95% confidence interval, .99–1.50]). Conclusions The reliability of self-reported prior antibiotic use was modest among individuals presenting with fever to tertiary hospitals. While antibiotics are likely to reduce the sensitivity of blood culture, our findings indicate that there is still considerable value in performing blood culture for individuals reporting antibiotic use.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".