Does Microbicide Use in Consumer Products Promote Antimicrobial Resistance? A Critical Review and Recommendations for a Cohesive Approach to Risk Assessment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing use of microbicides in consumer products is raising concerns related to enhanced microbicide resistance in bacteria and potential cross resistance to antibiotics. The recently published documents on this topic from the European Commission have spawned much interest to better understand the true extent of the putative links for the benefit of the manufacturers, regulators, and consumers alike. This white paper is based on a 2-day workshop (SEAC-Unilever, Bedford, United Kingdom; June 2012) in the fields of microbicide usage and resistance. It identifies gaps in our knowledge and also makes specific recommendations for harmonization of key terms and refinement/standardization of methods for testing microbicide resistance to better assess the impact and possible links with cross resistance to antibiotics. It also calls for a better cohesion in research in this field. Such information is crucial to developing any risk assessment framework on microbicide use notably in consumer products. The article also identifies key research questions where there are inadequate data, which, if addressed, could promote improved knowledge and understanding to assess any related risks for consumer and environmental safety.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it