Impact of polymethylmethacrylate additives on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius biofilm formation in vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of gentamicin, silver, or both additives in polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) beads on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MRSP) biofilm formation in vitro. SAMPLE: 4 preparations of PMMA beads (formed with no additive [control], gentamicin, silver, and gentamicin and silver). PROCEDURES: Beads from each group were exposed to 10 MRSP isolates known to be strong biofilm formers. Following incubation, the beads were rinsed to remove planktonic bacteria, then sonicated to dislodge biofilm-associated bacteria. Resulting suspensions were serially diluted, plated on blood agar, and incubated overnight; CFUs were counted. Variance of mean CFU counts following log10 transformation was analyzed among PMMA groups. RESULTS: None of the PMMA additives tested completely inhibited MRSP biofilm formation. There was a significant effect of gentamicin and gentamicin plus silver on this variable, compared with controls, but not of silver alone. There was no difference between gentamicin and gentamicin plus silver. When only isolates not susceptible to gentamicin were evaluated, there were no significant differences among PMMA additive groups. Within gentamicin-susceptible isolates, there was an impact of gentamicin and gentamicin plus silver, but no impact of silver alone and no difference between gentamicin and gentamicin plus silver. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Gentamicin-impregnated PMMA was effective at reducing biofilm formation of gentamicin-susceptible MRSP isolates but had no effect on isolates not susceptible to gentamicin. Silver-impregnated PMMA had no effect on MRSP biofilm formation. Results suggested that gentamicin-impregnated PMMA may not be effective in vivo against MRSP isolates not susceptible to gentamicin. Antibacterial efficacy of silver should not be assumed without proper testing of the target bacteria and specific silver compound.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".