Dose–response algorithms for water-borne<i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i>folliculitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed two dose-response algorithms for P. aeruginosa pool folliculitis using bacterial and lesion density estimates, associated with undetectable, significant, and almost certain folliculitis. Literature data were fitted to Furumoto & Mickey's equations, developed for plant epidermis-invading pathogens: N l = A ln(1 + BC) (log-linear model); P inf = 1-e(-r c C) (exponential model), where A and B are 2.51644 × 107 lesions/m2 and 2.28011 × 10-11 c.f.u./ml P. aeruginosa, respectively; C = pathogen density (c.f.u./ml), N l = folliculitis lesions/m2, P inf = probability of infection, and r C = 4·3 × 10-7 c.f.u./ml P. aeruginosa. Outbreak data indicates these algorithms apply to exposure durations of 41 ± 25 min. Typical water quality benchmarks (≈10-2 c.f.u./ml) appear conservative but still useful as the literature indicated repeated detection likely implies unstable control barriers and bacterial bloom potential. In future, culture-based outbreak testing should be supplemented with quantitative polymerase chain reaction and organic carbon assays, and quantification of folliculitis aetiology to better understand P. aeruginosa risks.
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 | 0.004 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".