Caspofungin Etest Endpoint for <i>Aspergillus</i> Isolates Shows Poor Agreement with the Reference Minimum Effective Concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M38-A2 reference broth microdilution (BMD) method for the antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi now includes guidelines for testing echinocandin activity using the minimum effective concentration (MEC) as the endpoint measurement. In this study, we compared the caspofungin Etest MIC on RPMI agar and Mueller-Hinton agar (supplemented with glucose and methylene blue [MGM]) to the BMD MEC for 345 clinical Aspergillus isolates, including A. flavus, A. fumigatus, A. nidulans, A. niger, and A. terreus. The essential agreement (+/-1 log(2) dilution) of the Etest on MGM and RPMI agar with the reference BMD MEC was 18 and 26%, respectively. The geometric mean values for BMD MEC and MGM Etest were 0.137 and 0.024 microg/ml, respectively, and the geometric mean values for BMD and RPMI agar were 0.128 and 0.031 microg/ml, respectively. Comparatively, 91% of paired MGM and RPMI Etest results were within 2 log(2) dilutions of each other and consistently produced clearly defined endpoints. In conclusion, the caspofungin Etest MIC, like the BMD MEC, is a reproducible endpoint but is markedly lower than the reference BMD. In anticipation of susceptibility breakpoint assignments, optimization studies will be required to improve the concordance of these two assays so that the potential for underreporting echinocandin resistance in Aspergillus is mitigated.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".