In vitro activity of quinupristin/dalfopristin, linezolid, telithromycin and comparator antimicrobial agents against 13 species of coagulase-negative staphylococci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine in vitro susceptibilities of a large series of speciated coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) against three new antibiotics, linezolid, quinupristin/dalfopristin and telithromycin. METHODS: Susceptibilities to three new antibiotics and oxacillin, vancomycin, clindamycin and erythromycin were determined by the agar dilution method, as described by the NCCLS. RESULTS: Resistance to linezolid was not observed in any isolates, although MIC90 values varied between species. Fifteen of 658 (2.3%) isolates were resistant to quinupristin/dalfopristin, but < 1% of the clinically most important isolates of Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus haemolyticus and Staphylococcus hominis demonstrated resistance to this agent. Susceptibility to clindamycin correlated with susceptibility to quinupristin/dalfopristin; however, resistance to clindamycin did not predict quinupristin/dalfopristin resistance. Telithromycin was the least active of the new agents tested, showing activity similar to that of clindamycin. Susceptibility and resistance to clindamycin were predictive of susceptibility and resistance to telithromycin. CONCLUSION: Clindamycin susceptibility can be used as a surrogate marker for susceptibility to quinupristin/dalfopristin and telithromycin. Quinupristin/dalfopristin and linezolid show good activity against both mecA-positive and -negative CNS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".