test.pdf
| Assessment Criterion | AI Analysis | AI Judgment | Issues |
|---|---|---|---|
|
S1: How representative was the exposed cohort?
cs_s1
|
The document does not provide explicit information about how the exposed cohort was selected or whether it is representative of the average exposed person in the community. The study focuses on monitoring AMR in aquaculture settings and surrounding marine environments but does not describe the representativeness of the exposed cohort in terms of community representation or selection methods.
|
no star awarded | |
|
S2: How was the non-exposed cohort selected?
cs_s2
|
The document does not explicitly describe the selection or derivation of a non-exposed cohort. While it details the sampling sites and methods for exposed cohorts (aquaculture farms), there is no mention of how control or non-exposed sites were selected or whether they were drawn from the same community or source population as the exposed cohort.
|
no star awarded | |
|
S3: How was exposure ascertained?
cs_s3
|
The document does not explicitly describe how exposure (antimicrobial resistance risks in coastal waters and aquaculture systems) was ascertained. There is no mention of secure records, structured interviews/questionnaires, or validation of self-reports. The methodology section focuses on sample collection and laboratory analysis but does not address exposure ascertainment methods.
|
no star awarded | |
|
S4: Was the outcome of interest not present at the start of the study?
cs_s4
|
The document does not explicitly state whether the outcome of interest (antimicrobial resistance risks) was present at the start of the study. While the study describes a year-long monitoring program to evaluate AMR in aquaculture settings and surrounding marine environments, there is no clear indication that the outcome was absent at baseline. The study design is described as a monitoring program, but it does not explicitly confirm the absence of the outcome at the start.
|
no star awarded | |
|
C1: Were the cohorts comparable on the basis of design or analysis, controlling for confounders?
cs_c1
|
The provided text does not contain any explicit information about controlling for confounders in the study design or analysis. There is no mention of how cohorts were made comparable or which confounders were considered.
|
no star awarded | |
|
O1: How was the outcome assessed?
cs_o1
|
The document does not explicitly describe the method of outcome assessment for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) risks. While it mentions various analytical methods (e.g., multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) index, comparative AMR risk index (CAMRI), and Risk quotient (RQ)), there is no explicit statement about whether the assessment was conducted through independent blind assessment, record linkage, or self-report. The absence of clear methodological details on outcome assessment precludes awarding a star for this criterion.
|
no star awarded | |
|
O2: Was the follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur?
cs_o2
|
The study explicitly states a 1-year follow-up period for monitoring antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in coastal waters and aquaculture systems, which is clearly sufficient for the outcome of interest (AMR development and propagation) to occur. The duration is explicitly mentioned in both the abstract and methodology sections.
|
star awarded | |
|
O3: Was the follow-up adequate (i.e., completeness)?
cs_o3
|
The document does not provide any explicit information about follow-up completeness, loss to follow-up rates, or descriptions of subjects lost to follow-up. Without this critical information, we cannot assess whether follow-up was adequate according to NOS criteria.
|
no star awarded |