MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027298559 · doi:10.1159/000239438

Comparison of the Bactericidal Action of Amikacin, Netilmicin and Tobramycin in Free and Liposomal Formulation against Pseudomonas aeruginosa

2009· article· en· W2027298559 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemotherapy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntimicrobial Peptides and Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTobramycinNetilmicinAmikacinPseudomonas aeruginosaLiposomeChemistryAminoglycosideMicrobiologyMinimum inhibitory concentrationCationic polymerizationAntibioticsGentamicinBiologyBiochemistryBacteriaOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rates at which free, cationic and anionic liposomal forms of amikacin, netilmicin and tobramycin kill Pseudomonas aeruginosa were studied in vitro. Control inocula with no antibiotic yielded 6.76, 9.53 and 9.74 log CFU/ml at 0, 6 and 24 h, respectively. Empty anionic or cationic liposomes had no effect on bacterial growth. The killing rates of free antibiotics against the bacterial strain were not enhanced by the addition of either empty anionic or cationic liposomes. After 6 and 24 h of exposure at 1, 2 and 4 times the minimum inhibitory concentrations, free amikacin, netilmicin and tobramycin demonstrated a more rapid bactericidal effect than encapsulated anionic or cationic liposomes. The killing rates of liposomal aminoglycosides were lower than those of free aminoglycosides at identical concentrations, suggesting that only fractions of the encapsulated drugs were released from liposomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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