In vitro susceptibility of isolates of<i>Sporothrix schenckii</i>to amphotericin B, itraconazole, and terbinafine: comparison of yeast and mycelial forms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forty-three clinical isolates of Sporothrix schenckii derived from humans and animals were evaluated in vitro for their susceptibility to amphotericin B, itraconazole, and terbinafine. MICs were determined by the method of micro dilution in liquid media, using protocols M27-A2 for the yeast form and M38-A for the mycelial form, both standardized by the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. In general, higher MICs were found for the mycelial form (intervals of up to two dilutions). In the case of amphotericin B, a significant difference in activity was observed, with higher values (p<0.05) found for the mycelial form. MICs for itraconazole and terbinafine were similar for both yeast and mycelial forms but slightly higher for mycelia. Although data presented here indicate different levels of susceptibility when both growth forms were compared, indicating an intrinsic difference between them, it is still difficult to draw a consensus as to which form correlates better with clinical findings. More studies are necessary to determine the criteria for in vitro tests that will lead to efficient therapeutic choices.
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".