| Literature DB >> 22642960 |
Douglas Teodoro1, Emilie Pasche, Julien Gobeill, Stéphane Emonet, Patrick Ruch, Christian Lovis.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance has reached globally alarming levels and is becoming a major public health threat. Lack of efficacious antimicrobial resistance surveillance systems was identified as one of the causes of increasing resistance, due to the lag time between new resistances and alerts to care providers. Several initiatives to track drug resistance evolution have been developed. However, no effective real-time and source-independent antimicrobial resistance monitoring system is available publicly.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22642960 PMCID: PMC3799609 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.2043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Architecture of the Detecting and Eliminating Bacteria Using Information Technology (DebugIT) framework. Components of the architecture, such as the clinical data repository (CDR), knowledge repository (KR), decision support system (DSS), and monitoring system (MS), are interconnected using the HTTP/SPARQL protocol through the Internet bus. Messages are transferred in the RDF format, and ontologies formalize the data model and content.
Figure 2Antimicrobial Resistance Trend Monitoring System (ARTEMIS) architecture. (a) Ontology components. Models: data definition ontology (DDO), DebugIT Core Ontology (DCO), and interface ontology (IO). Mappings: local-terminology-to-DCO (LT2DCO) and global-terminology-to-DCO (T2DCO). (b) Run-time business components. (1) Data layer components are deployed within the demilitarized zone of the health care institution. (2) Controller and view layers contain central services, which are deployed in the Internet. lCDR = local clinical data repository.
Data used in the Antimicrobial Resistance Trend Monitoring System (ARTEMIS).
| Data group | Data item | ACHa | HEGPb | HUGc | IZIPd | NHHe | SIRf | UKLFRg |
| Demographics | Age | ×h | × | × | × | × | × | −i |
| Sex | × | × | × | × | × | × | − | |
| Location | Department | − | × | − | − | − | − | × |
| Laboratory | Bacteria | × | × | × | − | × | × | × |
| Antibiotic | × | × | × | − | × | × | × | |
| Specimen | × | × | × | − | × | × | × | |
| S.I.R.j | × | × | × | − | × | × | × | |
| Medication | Drug | × | × | × | × | × | − | − |
| Triples (×106) | 0.05 | 25.20 | 19.87 | 2.79 | 0.02 | 3.81 | 19.10 | |
a Athens Chest Hospital “Sotiria.”
b Georges Pompidou European Hospital.
c Les Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève.
d Internetový Pristup Ke Zdravotním Informacím Pacienta.
e National Heart Hospital.
f Swedish Intensive Care Registry.
g Universitätsklinikum Freiburg.
h Concept available in the local clinical data repository.
i Concept not available in the local clinical data repository.
j Breakpoint values: susceptible (S), intermediate (I), and resistant (R).
Figure 3Antimicrobial Resistance Trend Monitoring System (ARTEMIS) interface. The menu on the left displays the interface ontology concepts, which are used to fill in the template parameters. Each of the view tabs represents a different query template. The data visualization interface displays several graphical representations to provide a comprehensive view of the data.
Figure 4Local clinical data repository (lCDR) deployment and population model. (a) Production data are extracted daily to a local mirror database, which is “sparqlized” by an SQL-to-RDF engine. (b) RDF view is created directly on top of the legacy system. Data are anonymized on the fly.
Figure 5The hybrid ontology-driven interoperability mapping model. White elements represent local-level concepts and blue elements represent shared knowledge. (a) Local entity-relationship schemata are formalized by the data definition ontologies (DDOs). Mappings between DDO data elements and DebugIT Core Ontology (DCO) link local concepts to the global knowledge. (b) Example of a semantic mapping: concept map diagram (left) and RDF/Notation3 representation (right).
Arithmetic (ta) and geometric (tg) mean (SD) execution times for the two query mediation strategies: local (Antimicrobial Resistance Trend Monitoring System [ARTEMIS]) versus central (baseline) reasoning.
| Template | Number of | ARTEMIS | Baseline | ||
| ta (seconds) | tg (seconds) | ta (seconds) | tg (seconds) | ||
| 1 | 75 | 8.4 (0.1×102) | 4.2 (0.1) | 311.0 (0.9×103) | 308.3 (0.1) |
| 2 | 75 | 2.3 (0.6×10) | 1.3 (0.1) | 74.7 (0.6×102) | 72.1 (0.1) |
| 3 | 75 | 2.0 (0.2×10) | 1.7 (0.1) | 5.9 (0.8×10) | 2.7 (0.1) |
| All | 225 | 4.3 (0.1×102) | 2.1 (0.1) | 130.5 (0.1×103) | 39.2 (0.1) |
Figure 6Query performance. Response time and rows retrieved by template (1-3) and aggregation period. As the number of rows retrieved increases, the response time tends also to increase.
Resistance rate geometric mean (SD) and correlation results.
| Number of | Resistance rate | ρ |
| ||
| EARS-Neta | SEARCHb | ARTEMISc | |||
| 221 | 0.032 (0.002×102) | NAd | 0.038 (0.002×102) | .86 | <.001 |
| 153 | NA | 0.042 (0.001×102) | 0.053 (0.002×102) | .84 | <.001 |
a European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network.
b Sentinel Surveillance of Antibiotic Resistance in Switzerland.
c Antimicrobial Resistance Trend Monitoring System.
d Not applicable.
Figure 7Antimicrobial Resistance Trend Monitoring System (ARTEMIS) vs European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net). (a) Resistance rates (n = 221). Black line indicates an exact match (100% equivalence). Gray line indicates best fit. Gray dashed lines indicate Δ = ±0.130. (b) Resistance rates without outliers (n = 213). (c) Gray vertical dashed lines indicate similarity region Δ. Gray horizontal bars indicate two one-sided convolution confidence interval (CI). 95% CIa 0–0.030 (P < .001); 95% CIb 0.002–0.026 (P < .001).
Figure 8Antimicrobial Resistance Trend Monitoring System (ARTEMIS) vs Sentinel Surveillance of Antibiotic Resistance in Switzerland (SEARCH). (a) Resistance rates (n = 153). Black line indicates exact match (100% equivalence). Gray line indicates best fit. Gray dashed lines indicate Δ = ±0.042. (b) Resistance rates without outliers (n = 143). (c) Gray vertical dashed lines indicate similarity region Δ. Gray horizontal bars indicate two one-sided convolution confidence interval (CI). 95% CIa 0–0.052 (P = .17); 95% CIb –0.004 to 0.028 (P = .004).