Interlaboratory Comparison of Results of Susceptibility Testing with Caspofungin against <i>Candida</i> and <i>Aspergillus</i> Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seventeen laboratories participated in a study of interlaboratory reproducibility with caspofungin microdilution susceptibility testing against panels comprising 30 isolates of Candida spp. and 20 isolates of Aspergillus spp. The laboratories used materials supplied from a single source to determine the influence of growth medium (RPMI 1640 with or without glucose additions and antibiotic medium 3 [AM3]), the same incubation times (24 h and 48 h), and the same end point definition (partial or complete inhibition of growth) for the MIC of caspofungin. All tests were run in duplicate, and end points were determined both spectrophotometrically and visually. The results from almost all of the laboratories for quality control and reference Candida and Aspergillus isolates tested with fluconazole and itraconazole matched the NCCLS published values. However, considerable interlaboratory variability was seen in the results of the caspofungin tests. For Candida spp. the most consistent MIC data were generated with visual "prominent growth reduction" (MIC(2)) end points measured at 24 h in RPMI 1640, where 73.3% of results for the 30 isolates tested fell within a mode +/- one dilution range across all 17 laboratories. MIC(2) at 24 h in RPMI 1640 or AM3 also gave the best interlaboratory separation of Candida isolates of known high and low susceptibility to caspofungin. Reproducibility of MIC data was problematic for caspofungin tests with Aspergillus spp. under all conditions, but the minimal effective concentration end point, defined as the lowest caspofungin concentration yielding conspicuously aberrant hyphal growth, gave excellent reproducibility for data from 14 of the 17 participating laboratories.
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 | 0.051 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".