Use of culture and molecular analysis to determine the effect of antibiotic treatment on microbial community diversity and abundance during exacerbation in patients with cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anaerobic bacteria are increasingly regarded as important in cystic fibrosis (CF) pulmonary infection. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of antibiotic treatment on aerobic and anaerobic microbial community diversity and abundance during exacerbations in patients with CF. METHODS: Sputum was collected at the start and completion of antibiotic treatment of exacerbations and when clinically stable. Bacteria were quantified and identified following culture, and community composition was also examined using culture-independent methods. RESULTS: Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Burkholderia cepacia complex were detected by culture in 24/26 samples at the start of treatment, 22/26 samples at completion of treatment and 11/13 stable samples. Anaerobic bacteria were detected in all start of treatment and stable samples and in 23/26 completion of treatment samples. Molecular analysis showed greater bacterial diversity within sputum samples than was detected by culture; there was reasonably good agreement between the methods for the presence or absence of aerobic bacteria such as P aeruginosa (κ=0.74) and B cepacia complex (κ=0.92), but agreement was poorer for anaerobes. Both methods showed that the composition of the bacterial community varied between patients but remained relatively stable in most individuals despite treatment. Bacterial abundance decreased transiently following treatment, with this effect more evident for aerobes (median decrease in total viable count 2.3×10(7) cfu/g, p=0.005) than for anaerobes (median decrease in total viable count 3×10(6) cfu/g, p=0.046). CONCLUSION: Antibiotic treatment targeted against aerobes had a minimal effect on abundance of anaerobes and community composition, with both culture and molecular detection methods required for comprehensive characterisation of the microbial community in the CF lung. Further studies are required to determine the clinical significance of and optimal treatment for these newly identified bacteria.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".