MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133041831

Isolation of Carbapenemase Producing Enterobacteriaceae in the Greater Toronto Area's Sewage Treatment Plants and Surface Waters, and their Comparison to Clinical CPE from Toronto

2016· dissertation· W7133041831 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hyunjin Christina Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2016
Typedissertation
Language
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKlebsiella oxytocaSewageEnterobacter cloacaeEnterobacteriaceaeIsolation (microbiology)Sewage treatmentPlasmidEnterobacter
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence and significance of Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in Toronto's water system remains elusive. We sampled sewage from 5 sewage treatment plants and 7 surface water (SW) locations. Overall, 57/103 sewage specimens yielded 172 unique CPE and 2/7 SW locations yielded 8 CPE. Klebsiella oxytoca was the most common organism(31.9%) and blaKPC was the most common gene(88.4%) identified. blaKPC, blaOXA-48-like, and blaVIM genes were more frequently detected by raw sewage PCR method than filter sweep PCR, or culture method. In contrast, blaNDM genes were detected in approximately equal numbers of specimens by each method. Two Enterobacter cloacae blaVIM water isolates were clonally related to human isolates. K. oxytoca blaKPC clinical and sewage isolates were not clonally related; however, 3 sewage and 3 clinical isolates shared the same plasmid size and incompatibility group(IncFIIA). CPE are present in Torontoâ s sewage and SW, and some isolates are found in both water and humans.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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