MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009590146 · doi:10.1128/jcm.00792-14

Extended Characterization of Corynebacterium pyruviciproducens Based on Clinical Strains from Canada and Switzerland

2014· article· en· W2009590146 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Goldenberger, Vladimira Hinić, Selda Turan, Elisabeth Schultheiss, Ana Luisa Pacheco, Reno Frei, Kathryn Bernard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiphtheria, Corynebacterium, and Tetanus
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
Keywords16S ribosomal RNAMicrobiologyStrain (injury)BiologyIdentification (biology)Clinical microbiologyRibosomal RNAMatrix-assisted laser desorption/ionizationCorynebacteriumComputational biologyBacteriaGeneticsGeneChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The species Corynebacterium pyruviciproducens was described in 2010 based on the features of a single strain. In this report, we describe the chemotaxonomic and phenotypic characteristics of 11 C. pyruviciproducens clinical strains isolated in Switzerland and Canada in comparison to the strain 06-17730(T). Heterogeneities within the type strain were found in the 16S rRNA gene and in biochemical markers. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) identification of this species could not be achieved since currently this bacterial species is not included in the corresponding database. Reliable identification is obtained only with sequence-based identification tools. Results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing of this species with an extended panel of antimicrobials are presented here for the first time.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicDiphtheria, Corynebacterium, and TetanusFrench-language works237,207