Performance of Fusidic Acid (CEM-102) Susceptibility Testing Reagents: Broth Microdilution, Disk Diffusion, and Etest Methods as Applied to <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fusidic acid (CEM-102) is an established antistaphylococcal agent that has been used in clinical practice for more than 4 decades. The activity of fusidic acid against 778 isolates of Staphylococcus aureus collected from U.S. (53.8% were methicillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA]) and Canadian (46.5% were MRSA) medical centers was assessed to determine the intermethod accuracy of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and Etest methods. Broth microdilution MIC results were compared by scattergram analysis to zone diameters around commercially available 5- and 10-microg disks. Acceptable correlation (r = 0.74 to 0.76) was observed for the two disk concentrations, and applying breakpoints of < or = 1 microg/ml (> or = 22 mm) for susceptibility (S) and > or = 4 microg/ml (< or = 19 mm) for resistance (R) provided 99.9% absolute intermethod categorical agreement. Reference CLSI MIC versus Etest MIC results (r = 0.77; 728 strains) showed 55.4% identical results and agreement of 99.7% +/- one log2 dilution. The diagnostic susceptibility testing reagents (including Etest) for fusidic acid (CEM-102) performed at an excellent level of intermethod agreement for the proposed breakpoint criteria.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".