Standardization of a broth microdilution susceptibility testing method to determine minimum inhibitory concentrations of aquatic bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multiple laboratory study was conducted in accordance with the standards established by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), formerly the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS), for the development of quality control (QC) ranges using dilution antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for bacterial isolates from aquatic animal species. QC ranges were established for Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Aeromonas salmonicida subsp. salmonicida ATCC 33658 when testing at 22, 28 and 35 degrees C (E. coli only) for 10 different antimicrobial agents (ampicillin, enrofloxacin, erythromycin, florfenicol, flumequine, gentamicin, ormetoprim/sulfadimethoxine, oxolinic acid, oxytetracycline and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole). Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) QC ranges were determined using dry- and frozen-form 96-well plates and cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth. These QC ranges were accepted by the CLSI/NCCLS Subcommittee on Veterinary Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing in January 2004. This broth microdilution testing method represents the first standardized method for determining MICs of bacterial isolates whose preferred growth temperatures are below 35 degrees C. Methods and QC ranges defined in this study will enable aquatic animal disease researchers to reliably compare quantitative susceptibility testing data between laboratories, and will be used to ensure both precision and inter-laboratory harmonization.
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 | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".