MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034674953 · doi:10.2500/ajr.2007.21.3069

Methods for Removing Bacterial Biofilms: In Vitro Study using Clinical Chronic Rhinosinusitis Specimens

2007· article· en· W2034674953 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Desrosiers, Matthew Myntti, Garth A. James

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Rhinology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaphylococcus aureusBiofilmPseudomonas aeruginosaMicrobiologyColony-forming unitPulmonary surfactantRefractory (planetary science)MedicineChronic rhinosinusitisSalineIn vitroBacteriaChemistryBiologyImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bacterial biofilms may be involved in refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). In vitro, we studied methods for removing biofilms formed by Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. METHODS: Bacterial isolates were obtained from patients with refractory CRS and were plated and treated with either static administration of citric acid/zwitterionic surfactant (CAZS), saline delivered with hydrodynamic force, or CAZS delivered hydrodynamically. Results were assessed by counting colony-forming units (CFUs) and by confocal scanning laser microscopy (CSLM). RESULTS: All treatments produced significant reductions in CFU counts (p >or= 0.002). Hydrodynamic CAZS provided the greatest reduction, decreasing CFU counts from control values by 3.9 +/- 0.3 logs and 5.2 +/- 0.5 logs for S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, respectively (99.9% reduction; p = 0.001). CSLM showed decreases in biofilm coverage. CONCLUSION: Hydrodynamic delivery of a soap-like surfactant and a calcium-ion sequestering agent may disrupt biofilms associated with CRS. Our results may be relevant to a new approach to refractory CRS.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.398 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations87
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of RhinologySame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207