<i>In vitro</i>pharmacodynamic characteristics of griseofulvin against dermatophyte isolates of<i>Trichophyton tonsurans</i>from tinea capitis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tinea capitis is the most commonly observed fungal infection in childhood and is primarily caused by the dermatophyte species Trichophyton tonsurans, Microsporum canis, and Trichophyton violaceum. In North America and the United Kingdom T. tonsurans is responsible for more than 90% of cases. Griseofulvin has been the treatment of choice for tinea capitis for more than 40 years and is the sole oral antifungal agent approved by the FDA for the management of tinea capitis. Some researchers have expressed concern about the possibility of emerging resistance in tinea capitis isolates, especially when there is clinical failure to treatment. A total of 151 isolates of T. tonsurans (142), M. canis (7), and T. violaceum (2) collected from tinea capitis patients were evaluated for their susceptibility to griseofulvin using the CLSI M38-A method. MIC ranges and geometric means in parenthesis were observed for T. tonsurans 0.125-16 microg/ml (1.1 microg/ml), M. canis 0.25-2 microg/ml (0.61 microg/ml), and T. violaceum 2-4 microg/ml (2.82 microg/ml), respectively. In a time kill assay with T. tonsurans UAMH 9334, 50% and 90% reduction was observed in the number of colony forming units with >2x MIC after 6 h and 12 h of exposure to the griseofulvin, respectively. Of 142 T. tonsurans isolates studied, only three could grow on SDA containing 4 times to their griseofulvin MIC, representing resistance frequencies of 1.3 x 10(-6), 6.9 x 10(-7), and 9.7 x 10(-7). Furthermore a two-fold increase in MIC was observed in isolates collected at two time intervals in only one of eight patients. Interestingly, these isolates did not show the same increase in their in vitro resistance as exhibited by the three isolated mentioned above. In light of this data, we could not confirm any correlation between increased MIC and therapy failure.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".