Genotypic and Phenotypic Characterization of Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Isolates Misidentified as Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by the BD GeneOhm MRSA Assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-three nasal swab samples that tested positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on initial testing by the BD GeneOhm MRSA assay (BD-MRSA PCR; BD GeneOhm, San Diego, CA) were culture positive only for methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) from an enrichment broth. The 23 recovered isolates were confirmed as MSSA by a variety of phenotypic methods, including the BD Phoenix automated microbiology system (BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD), oxacillin screening agar (BD Diagnostics), BBL CHROMagar MRSA (BD Diagnostics), and a PBP2' assay (Denka Seiken Co., Tokyo, Japan); susceptibilities were determined by using Mueller-Hinton agar with oxacillin. All were positive by nuc PCR, specific for S. aureus, but negative for mecA with one exception. Isolates were characterized by using multiplex PCR methodology to determine structural types and variants (SCCmec typing); additional PCRs were performed for the detection of the ccr and mec complexes, the junkyard regions as well as the Panton-Valentine leukocidin. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis was used to determine clonality. One phenotypic MSSA isolate contained an intact SCCmec. Twelve MSSA isolates tested positive for MRSA by the BD-MRSA PCR because of amplification of the mec priming site flanking the SCC insertion point, although these isolates lacked mecA. The 10 remaining isolates were not MRSA and tested as MSSA by phenotypic and genotypic assays. In our patient population, diagnostic and surveillance testing and subsequent infection control practices may be impacted by the frequency of these excision events when using the BD-MRSA PCR for MRSA detection.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".