MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980111518 · doi:10.1128/cmr.00058-14

Antimicrobial Heteroresistance: an Emerging Field in Need of Clarity

2015· review· en· W1980111518 on OpenAlexafffund
Omar M. El-Halfawy, Miguel A. Valvano

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Microbiology Reviews · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersBritish Society for Antimicrobial ChemotherapyCystic Fibrosis TrustCystic Fibrosis Canada
KeywordsCLARITYRelevance (law)AntimicrobialIntensive care medicineMedicineBiologyMicrobiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Heteroresistance" describes a phenomenon where subpopulations of seemingly isogenic bacteria exhibit a range of susceptibilities to a particular antibiotic. Unfortunately, a lack of standard methods to determine heteroresistance has led to inappropriate use of this term. Heteroresistance has been recognized since at least 1947 and occurs in Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Its clinical relevance may be considerable, since more resistant subpopulations may be selected during antimicrobial therapy. However, the use of nonstandard methods to define heteroresistance, which are costly and involve considerable labor and resources, precludes evaluating the clinical magnitude and severity of this phenomenon. We review the available literature on antibiotic heteroresistance and propose recommendations for definitions and determination criteria for heteroresistant bacteria. This will help in assessing the global clinical impact of heteroresistance and developing uniform guidelines for improved therapeutic outcomes.

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)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations475
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Microbiology ReviewsSame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207