A quantitative study of the survival of two species of Candida on porous and non-porous environmental surfaces and hands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In spite of the importance of many species of Candida as human pathogens, little is known about their ability to survive on animate and inanimate surfaces. Such information is essential in understanding the vehicles and modes of their spread, and in designing proper infection control strategies against them. The aim of this study was to generate comparative quantitative data in this regard. METHODS AND RESULTS: The survival of one clinical isolate each of Candida albicans and C. parapsilosis on two types of hard inanimate surfaces (glass and stainless steel) and two types of fabrics (100% cotton and a blend of 50% cotton and 50% polyester) was evaluated under ambient conditions (air temperature 22 +/- 2 degrees C; relative humidity 45-62%) using quantitative test protocols. The survival of C. albicans was also assessed on human skin, using the fingerpads of adult volunteers as carriers. Each carrier surface received 10 microl of the test suspension containing a soil load to simulate body fluids. When dried on glass and stainless steel carriers, C. albicans and C. parapsilosis remained viable for at least three and 14 days, respectively. Both species could survive for at least 14 days on both types of fabric. On the skin, 20% of the viable C. albicans remained detectable one hour post-inoculation. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This quantitative and comparative study demonstrated the potential for, and differences in the ability of clinically significant species of Candida to remain viable on porous and non-porous inanimate surfaces as well as on human hands. These results should help in understanding the epidemiology of nosocomial infections due to Candida, and in designing better prevention and control strategies against them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".