MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123673715 · doi:10.1128/jcm.01979-10

Molecular and Phenotypic Characterization of Phialemonium and Lecythophora Isolates from Clinical Samples

2011· article· en· W2123673715 on OpenAlexaff
Haybrig Perdomo, Deanna A. Sutton, Dania García, A W Fothergill, Josepa Gené, J. Cano, Richard C. Summerbell, Michael G. Rinaldi, Josep Guarro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyRibosomal DNARibosomal RNAZoologyMicrobiologyPhylogeneticsGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several members of the fungal genera Phialemonium and Lecythophora are occasional agents of severe human and animal infections. These species are difficult to identify, and relatively little is known about their frequency in the clinical setting. The objective of this study was to characterize morphologically and molecularly, on the basis of the analysis of large-subunit ribosomal DNA sequences, a set of 68 clinical isolates presumed to belong to these genera. A total of 59 isolates were determined to be Phialemonium species (n = 32) or a related Cephalotheca species (n = 6) or Lecythophora species (n = 20) or a related Coniochaeta species (n = 1). Nine isolates identified to be Acremonium spp. or Phaeoacremonium spp. were excluded from further study. The most common species were Phialemonium obovatum and Phialemonium curvatum, followed by Lecythophora hoffmannii, Cephalotheca foveolata, and Lecythophora mutabilis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207