MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963768313 · doi:10.1051/vetres:2000100

Guidelines and recommendations for antimicrobial minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing against veterinary mycoplasma species

2000· review· en· W1963768313 on OpenAlexfundno aff
P. C. T. HANNAN

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Research · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMinimum inhibitory concentrationMycoplasmaMicrobiologyBiologyMycoplasma gallisepticumAntimicrobialBroth microdilutionAgarVeterinary medicineBacteriaMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The absence of standardised procedures for minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing of antimicrobial agents against veterinary mycoplasma and ureaplasma species (Mollicutes) has made it difficult to compare results originating from different laboratories.This report, prepared on behalf of the International Research Programme on Comparative Mycoplasmology (IRPCM), offers guidelines and recommendations for veterinary MIC testing of these organisms in an effort to rectify this problem.The subjects discussed include suitable media for broth and agar MIC assays, storage and preparation of antimicrobial agents, standardisation of mycoplasma inocula for MIC tests, validation of equipment, incubation conditions, and determination of MIC end points.A standard medium for all veterinary mycoplasma MIC tests cannot currently be recommended, owing to the diversity of nutritional requirements of different mycoplasma species.Instead mycoplasma broths or agars giving optimal growth of specific mycoplasmas or ureaplasmas are recommended, as suboptimal growth may lead to falsely low MIC results.The importance of using standardised mycoplasma inocula, for assays using either solid or liquid media is stressed.The growth phase may be less important as lag phase and logarithmic phase cultures of Mycoplasma gallisepticum, M. synoviae, M. bovis and M. hyopneumoniae have given very similar results in liquid MIC assays.The liquid method of Tanner and Wu and the agar method described by Hannan et al. are compared and described in detail.Methods for calculating MIC 50 s and MIC 90 s are described and the interpretation of results discussed.Methods for assessing mycoplasmacidal (MMC) activity of antimicrobial agents are also described.Adoption of these guidelines should lead to more consistent MIC results being obtained between laboratories. MIC / mycoplasmacidal / antibiotic / mycoplasma / ureaplasmaRésumé -Instructions et recommandations pour les tests de concentration minimum inhibitrice (CMI) d'antimicrobiens contre les mycoplasmes en médecine vétérinaire.L'absence de procédures standardisées pour le test de concentration minimum inhibitrice (CMI) d'agents antimicrobiens contre les mycoplasmes et uréaplasmes (Mollicutes) présents chez les animaux, rend difficile la comparaison des résultats provenant de différents laboratoires.Ce document, préparé pour le Vet.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0110.003
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.015

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 head0.459
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.014 · 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

Citations349
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary ResearchSame topicMicrobial infections and disease researchFrench-language works237,207