Application of Two Methods to Determine Killing of<i>Streptococcus pneumoniae</i>by Various Fluoroquinolones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing measures the lowest drug concentration that prevents microbial growth using an inoculum of 10(5) colony forming units/ml (cfu/ml) whereas the mutant prevention concentration (MPC) (inoculum approximately 10(10) cells) defines the antimicrobial drug concentration threshold that would require an organism to possess two simultaneous mutations for continued growth in the presence of the drug. The rates at which multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae [MDRSP] were killed by the respiratory fluoroquinolones, gatifloxacin, gemfloxacin, levofloxacin and moxifloxacin, were compared based on the MIC and MPC drug concentrations and at inocula ranging from 10(6)-10(9) cfu/ml. The MIC drug concentration failed to eradicate all viable cells whereas the MPC drug concentration resulted in 99.9% to 100% cellular reduction following 12-24 hours of drug exposure. MPC values against S. pneumoniae were different for each fluoroquinolone. The MPC drug concentration prevents the selection of multidrug-resistant or fluoroquinolone-resistant S. pneumoniae. The value of dosing of antimicrobial agents based on MPC thresholds results in a rapid reduction in viable cells--even at higher inocula which are more reflective of organism burden in pneumonia. The rapid reduction in viable cells observed at MPC drug concentrations may not only have an impact on preventing the selection of resistant mutants but may also help explain the rapid symptom resolution seen with new fluoroquinolones since these agents lead to little or low release of cell contents which are known to drive the inflammatory response.
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) | 0.001 | 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".