Basis of the Superiority of Cefoperazone Amphotericin Teicoplanin for Isolating <i>Campylobacter upsaliensis</i> from Stools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimum method for isolating Campylobacter upsaliensis from stools has not been clearly defined. In a preliminary study, cefoperazone amphotericin teicoplanin (CAT) selective medium isolated six C. upsaliensis strains which were not detected using modified cefoperazone charcoal deoxycholate (mCCDA). In order to identify the factors that underlie the superiority of CAT over mCCDA for isolating C. upsaliensis, we examined the effect of incubation time and antibiotic content of culture media on the growth of C. upsaliensis isolates using semiquantitative methods. The recovery of a subgroup of C. upsaliensis isolates from seeded stool specimens was also evaluated. Differences in growth of C. upsaliensis on CAT and mCCDA were modest and were not explained by the antibiotic profiles of the two media. Recovery of C. upsaliensis from spiked human feces on CAT was superior to that on mCCDA at lower concentrations of organisms (10(3) CFU/ml). We conclude that although CAT is more suitable than mCCDA for the isolation of C. upsaliensis from stools, the superiority of CAT for detecting this organism is not accounted for by the antibiotic composition of the medium.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".