Performance of an Agar Dilution Method and a Vitek 2 Card for Detection of Inducible Clindamycin Resistance in <i>Staphylococcus</i> spp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The D-zone test detects inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococcus spp. Two other methods not described by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) are available to test for this resistance mechanism: an agar dilution method and new Vitek 2 cards. This study evaluated the performance of both methods in detecting inducible clindamycin resistance. Nonduplicate clinical strains of Staphylococcus spp. (111 Staphylococcus aureus and 52 coagulase-negative staphylococcus strains), intermediate or resistant to erythromycin but susceptible to clindamycin, were obtained from three hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Molecular analysis to detect resistance genes was conducted on all strains. A Mueller-Hinton agar containing 1 mg of erythromycin and 0.5 mg of clindamycin/liter was used for the dilution method, and two inocula were tested: 10(4) and 10(5) CFU per spot. Plates were read at 24 and 48 h. The Vitek 2 AST-P580 card was used according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The results were compared to those of the D-zone test. The D-zone test was positive in 134 of 163 (82%) strains. With the 10(4) CFU inoculum, the sensitivities were 84 and 99% at 24 and 48 h, respectively. The 10(5) CFU inoculum increased the sensitivities at 24 and 48 h to 91 and 100%, respectively. The specificity was 100% for the 10(4) CFU inoculum at 24 h and 97% for the other combinations. The sensitivity and specificity for the Vitek 2 card were 93 and 100%, respectively. The performance of both the agar dilution method and the Vitek 2 card was good, but these methods were not as sensitive as the D-zone test at 24 h.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".