Staphylococcus aureus in acne pathogenesis: A case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is considerable evidence which suggests a possible pathogenetic role for Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) in acne vulgaris. AIM: The study was to determine S. aureus colonization and antibiotic susceptibility patterns in patients with acne and of healthy people. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the case-control study, a total of 324 people were screened for nasal carriage of S. aureus: 166 acne patients and 158 healthy persons. One control subject was individually matched to one case. Nasal swabs from anterior nares of individuals were cultured and identified as S. aureus. Antibiotic sensitivity was performed with recognized laboratory techniques. RESULTS: S. aureus was detected in 21.7% of the subjects in acne, and in 26.6% of control groups. There was no statistical difference in colonization rates between two groups (P=0.3). In patient group, most of S. aureus isolates were resistant to doxicycline and tetracycline (P=0.001), and were more sensitive to rifampicin compared to other drugs. In control samples, the isolated demonstrated higher resistance to cotrimoxazole compared to patient samples (P=0.0001). There was no difference between groups regarding resistance to rifampicin, vancomycin, methicillin, and oxacillin. CONCLUSION: It is still unclear whether S. aureus is actually a causal agent in the pathogenesis of acne. Based on microbiological data of both healthy and acne-affected persons, we propose that contribution of S. aureus in acne pathogenesis is controversial.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".