MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154268169 · doi:10.1128/jcm.01622-10

Evaluation of CLSI Agar Dilution Method and Trek Sensititre Broth Microdilution Panel for Determining Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Streptococcus pneumoniae

2010· article· en· W2154268169 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroth microdilutionAgar dilutionStreptococcus pneumoniaeMicrobiologyPenicillinAntimicrobialAgarMeropenemAgar Dilution MethodMedicineBiologyAntibioticsMinimum inhibitory concentrationBacteriaAntibiotic resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both the CLSI agar dilution method and Trek Sensititre broth microdilution panel for Streptococcus pneumoniae antimicrobial susceptibility testing were evaluated against the reference CLSI broth microdilution method using the most recently published CLSI breakpoints. While agar dilution was not an optimal method, the commercial panel appeared to be an acceptable method, with minor errors encountered for ceftriaxone, penicillin, and meropenem.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.323 · 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