Appraisal of Disk Sensitivity Tests with Mecillinam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disk susceptibility tests for mecillinam were carried out on 167 hospital isolates of Enterobacteriaceae from Vancouver. Inhibition zone sizes with eight experimental variations were compared by three-way analysis of variance. The Association of Clinical Pathologists' method gave significantly (p = 0.0002) larger zones than the Kirby Bauer method (24.9 +/- SD 7.5 and 23.4 +/- 7.3 mm, respectively). 10 microgram mecillinam disks from Mast Laboratories gave significantly (p = 0.0004) larger zones than the Baltimore Biological Laboratories (BBL) equivalent (24.9 +/- 7.6 and 23.4 +/- 7.2 mm, respectively). Differences between Oxoid Iso-sensitest agar and BBL Mueller Hinton agar were not quite significant (24.5 +/- 7.9 and 23.8 +/- 6.9 mm, respectively, p = 0.061). Each disk test method was significantly different from at least one other (Duncan multiple range test, alpha = 0.05). A semilogarithmic regression was established between the antibiotic disk inhibition zone and the MIC for each experimental variation. BBL Mueller Hinton and Oxoid Iso-sensitest media did not give significantly different results in MIC determinants by a surface inoculation method. An additional 146 organisms from hospitals in New York provided a wider range of organisms from a different location. Pooled data from both centres were used to identify breakpoints for mecillinam in the disk susceptibility test using the Kirby Bauer method with BBL disks and media. A 16-mm breakpoint with 10 microgram mecillinam disks provides a realistic and conservative prediction of probable response to attainable serum concentrations of this antibiotic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".