Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sir: Dr. Myckatyn et al.’s comments regarding our article reflect the challenges of reporting biofilm analyses in scanning electron microscopy studies. The current definition of biofilm includes two main elements: (1) bacterial cells irreversibly attached to a living or inert surface/interface and (2) an extracellular polymeric substance matrix, comprising noncellular and abiotic components, produced by these cells.1 Biofilms cannot be simply regarded as an aggregate of bacteria; in our article, we described the biofilms using features and terms found across the medical and industrial literature. In our study, we observed thick biofilms presenting as acellular layers; importantly, the outer borders of our samples do in fact reveal bacteria in variable amounts, progressively embedded inside the maturing biofilm (Fig. 1). Biofilm characterization was performed by obtaining multiple high-magnification images before concluding that the thick acellular slime was the result of bacterial production.Fig. 1: Maturing biofilm. (Left) The thicker part of the biofilm is located on the left side of the image and is in complete continuity with the right side, where bacteria are still visible, along with a leukocyte and a red blood cell (original magnification, × 3000, with a working distance of 11.68 mm). (Right) Matured and thick porous biofilm showing variable cell size of bacteria (original magnification, × 3000, with a working distance of 9.93 mm).Bacteria with a sessile phenotype secrete the extracellular polymeric substances, which are composed of variable amounts of polysaccharide proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and other biopolymers. Biofilm may also contain red blood cells and leukocytes. Its overall thickness may be up to 50 to 100 μm because of the layering of multiple stacks of bacteria, which themselves measure only 0.2 to 2 μm.2,3 Moreover, the sessile bacteria phenotype is induced by the most turbulent flow conditions.1 Biofilm that develops during exposure to high shear stress demonstrates a modified composition that is characteristically thicker and stronger.4 In catheter and implant infections, Staphylococcus aureus produces a slimy biofilm, whereas in vitro the extracellular polymeric substance production is inconsistent.5 Therefore, the direct comparison of human periprosthetic samples and bacteria grown in a petri dish as presented by Dr. Myckatyn is not acceptable, as physiologic and nurturing conditions are completely different. We believe that the shear stress induced by early inflation of the expander contributes to alteration in bacteria phenotype and their extracellular polymeric substance expression, thereby potentially rendering them thicker. Biofilms observed in human conditions cannot be considered equivalent to in vitro biofilms. Importantly, the precise science and implications of biofilm are still under investigation; moving forward, it is essential to synthesize the relevant findings found across multiple platforms in various scientific domains to further advance our knowledge in this field. Only then will a clear consensus on definitions and ultrastructural descriptions be possible. DISCLOSURE Dr. Danino is a consultant and speaker for Allergan, Inc. The other authors have no commercial associations or financial interests to declare with respect to any of the information or products presented in this communication. Operational study costs were partially supported by an Allergan, Inc., industry research grant. Jean-Philippe Giot, M.D., Ph.D. Laurence S. Paek, M.D. M. Alain Danino, M.D., Ph.D. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery University of Montreal Hospital Center Université de Montréal Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,014 | 0,022 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,017 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».