The laboratory diagnosis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa that produce metallo-β-lactamases in a Dutch tertiary care centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The laboratory detection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa that produce metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) is not well defined in regions with a low prevalence of these enzymes. We report a study that developed ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) disk screen tests using doripenem, imipenem and meropenem and investigated the prevalence of these enzymes among clinical isolates of imipenem-resistant P. aeruginosa in Rotterdam during 2008-2009. METHODS: Using strains with well-characterized β-lactamases and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) disk methodology similar to extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) detection, inhibition zone diameters were determined in tests with doripenem, imipenem, and meropenem, alone and in combination with 370 μg of EDTA. These tests were compared with the MBL E-test. A positive test was a ≥5 mm increase in zone diameter in the presence of EDTA. RESULTS: The imipenem EDTA disk screen test showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 90% in 96 recent clinical isolates. Imipenem in combination with doripenem performed better than imipenem alone, meropenem, and the MBL E-test (sensitivity of 100%; specificity of 95%). The majority of clinical isolates were isolated from patient respiratory specimens. Of the 96 imipenem-resistant P. aeruginosa isolated, 35 (36%) were positive for bla(VIM) genes. CONCLUSIONS: The EDTA imipenem/doripenem disk test showed accurate and reproducible results with excellent sensitivity and specificity. It is simple to perform and interpret and can be easily introduced into the workflow of a clinical laboratory to screen for MBLs in imipenem-resistant P. aeruginosa. Due to its high specificity the test is also suitable for regions with a low prevalence of these enzymes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".