MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W188676540 · doi:10.1155/2000/382415

Antibiotic Susceptibility and Resistance Testing: An Overview

2000· review· en· W188676540 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Fiona Smaill

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntibioticsSerial dilutionAgar dilutionAgarOrganismMicrobiologyMinimum inhibitory concentrationBiologyAgar diffusion testBacteriaDilutionBacterial growthAntibiotic resistanceMedicineAntibacterial activityGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results of in vitro antibiotic susceptibility testing can predict the clinical response to treatment and guide the selection of antibiotics. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of an organism is the lowest concentration of an antibiotic that will inhibit its growth. Bacteria are classified as sensitive, intermediate or resistant based on breakpoint MIC values that are arbitrarily defined and reflect the achievable levels of the antibiotic, the distribution of MICs for the organism and their correlation with clinical outcome. Broth dilution, agar dilution and gradient diffusion (the 'E test'), where twofold serial dilutions of antibiotic are incorporated into tubes of broth, agar plates or on a paper strip, respectively, are different methods to measure the MIC of an organism. The disk diffusion method defines an organism as sensitive or resistant based on the extent of its growth around an antibiotic-containing disk. MIC values are influenced by several laboratory factors. To ensure reproducible results, the laboratory must closely follow methods developed by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, which defines standard growth media, incubation temperature and environment, the inoculum and quality control parameters.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.008

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207