MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151326498 · doi:10.1128/jcm.43.2.925-927.2005

Quality Control Guidelines for Testing Gram-Negative Control Strains with Polymyxin B and Colistin (Polymyxin E) by Standardized Methods

2005· article· en· W2151326498 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ronald N. Jones, Tamara R. Anderegg, Jana M. Swenson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionMedical Center, University of RochesterUniversity of AlbertaCleveland Clinic FoundationUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of RochesterCleveland Clinic
KeywordsColistinPolymyxinPolymyxin BMicrobiologyPseudomonas aeruginosaAntimicrobialBacilliGramAntibioticsMedicineBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An eight-laboratory study addressed the urgent need for quality control (QC) ranges for susceptibility determination when testing colistin (polymyxin E) and polymyxin B, two polycationic peptide antimicrobial agents, against multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli. For Escherichia coli ATCC 25922l, the QC ranges were as follows: for colistin, 0.25 to 1 microg/ml (11 to 17 mm), and for polymyxin B, 0.25 to 2 microg/ml (13 to 19 mm). For Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, the QC ranges were as follows: for colistin, 0.25 to 2 microg/ml (11 to 17 mm), and for polymyxin B, 0.25 to 2 mug/ml (14 to 18 mm). More than 97% of all reported QC results were within these proposed ranges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0090.002
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.382 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207