In vitro Sensitivity of Medically Significant Fusarium Species to Various Antimycotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sixteen isolates belonging to Fusarium chlamydosporum (n = 4), Fusarium equiseti (n = 1), Fusarium moniliforme (n = 2), Fusarium oxysporum (n = 3), Fusarium proliferatum (n = 1), and Fusarium solani (n = 5) were tested against amphotericin B, 5-fluorocytosine, fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, JAI-amphotericin B (water-soluble compound), hamycin and amphotericin B combined with 5-fluorocytosine, using antibiotic medium M3, high-resolution broth (pH 7.1), Sabouraud's dextrose, and yeast-nitrogen broth media (1 ml/tube). The minimal inhibitory and minimal fungicidal concentrations of 5-fluorocytosine and fluconazole for all species were > 100 micrograms/ml. All Fusarium isolates, except F. equiseti (3.125 micrograms), gave minimal inhibitory concentrations of 12.5-100 micrograms/ml for hamycin. The values for amphotericin B, itraconazole, ketoconazole, JAI-amphotericin B, and amphotericin B combined with 5-fluorocytosine were 1.56-100, 0.78-50, 3.125-100,50-100, and 1.56 to > 100 micrograms/ml, respectively. Although a wide range of minimal inhibitory concentrations was recorded for most of the isolates studied, it appears that some--F. solani, F. oxysporum, F. chlamydosporum, F. equiseti, and F. moliniforme--were more susceptible to amphotericin B, itraconazole, ketoconazole, hamycin, and amphotericin B in the presence of 5-fluorocytosine. All isolates showed resistance to 5-fluorocytosine and fluconazole. The minimal fungicidal concentrations were either the same or several times higher than the minimal inhibitory concentrations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".