Interlaboratory Study of Quality Control Isolates for a Broth Microdilution Method (Modified CLSI M38-A) for Testing Susceptibilities of Dermatophytes to Antifungals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI; formerly National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, or NCCLS) M38-A standard for the susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi does not specifically address the testing of dermatophytes. In 2003, a multicenter study investigated the reproducibility of the microdilution method developed at the Center for Medical Mycology, Cleveland, Ohio, for testing the susceptibility of dermatophytes. Data from that study supported the introduction of this method for testing dermatophytes in the future version of the CLSI M38-A standard. In order for the method to be accepted by CLSI, appropriate quality control isolates needed to be identified. To that end, an interlaboratory study, involving the original six laboratories plus two additional sites, was conducted to evaluate potential candidates for quality control isolates. These candidate strains included five Trichophyton rubrum strains known to have elevated MICs to terbinafine and five Trichophyton mentagrophytes strains. Antifungal agents tested included ciclopirox, fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, posaconazole, terbinafine, and voriconazole. Based on the data generated, two quality control isolates, one T. rubrum isolate and one T. mentagrophytes isolate, were identified and submitted to the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) for inclusion as reference strains. Ranges encompassing 95.2 to 97.9% of all data points for all seven drugs were established.
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 | 0.058 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".