MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1929839334 · doi:10.1139/w07-110

Comparative study of 7 fluorescent pseudomonad clinical isolates

2008· article· en· W1929839334 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Annelise Chapalain, Gaelle Rossignol, Olivier Lesouhaitier, Annabelle Mérieau, Christelle Gruffaz, Josette Guérillon, Jean‐Marie Meyer, Nicole Orange, Marc Feuilloley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPseudomonas fluorescensMicrobiologyPseudomonas aeruginosaVirulenceStrain (injury)BiologyPseudomonadalesPseudomonasPseudomonadaceaeBacteriaMicroorganismBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is some debate about the potential survival of Pseudomonas fluorescens at temperatures above 37 degrees C and its consequences for infectious potential, owing to the heterogeneity of clinical strains. Seven clinical strains growing at 37 degrees C or more were submitted for polyphasic identification; 2 were identified as Pseudomonas mosselii and 4 were precisely characterized as P. fluorescens bv. I or II. The binding indexes on glial cells of the strains identified as P. fluorescens bv. I and P. mosselii were compared with that of a reference psychrotrophic strain, P. fluorescens MF37 (bv. V). Clinical P. fluorescens had a similar adherence potential range than strain MF37. Conversely, the binding indexes for P. mosselii strains were 3 times greater than that for strain MF37. These data, and those obtained by comparing the cytotoxic activities of P. fluorescens clinical strains, suggest the existence of different virulence mechanisms, leading either to a low infectious form or to a microorganism with cytotoxic activity in the same range as that of P. mosselii or even Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207