Evaluation of Five Chromogenic Agar Media and the Rosco Rapid Carb Screen Kit for Detection and Confirmation of Carbapenemase Production in Gram-Negative Bacilli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An efficient workflow to screen for and confirm the presence of carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacilli was developed by evaluating five chromogenic screening agar media and two confirmatory assays, the Rapid Carb screen test (Rosco Diagnostica A/S, Taastrup, Denmark) and the modified Hodge test. A panel of 150 isolates was used, including 49 carbapenemase-producing isolates representing a variety of β-lactamase enzyme classes. An evaluation of analytical performance, assay cost, and turnaround time indicated that the preferred workflow (screening test followed by confirmatory testing) was the chromID Carba agar medium (bioMérieux, Marcy l'Étoile, France), followed by the Rapid Carb screen test, yielding a combined sensitivity of 89.8% and a specificity of 100%. As an optional component of the workflow, a determination of carbapenemase gene class via molecular means could be performed subsequent to confirmatory testing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".