<i>In vitro</i>combinations of natamycin with voriconazole, itraconazole and micafungin against clinical<i>Fusarium</i>strains causing keratitis: Table 1.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Fusarium species cause a broad spectrum of infections, from superficial to disseminated disease. Because Fusarium species are intrinsically resistant to most antifungal drugs, new approaches are needed. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the in vitro combination of natamycin with currently used antifungal drugs. METHODS: The in vitro interactions of combinations between natamycin and voriconazole, itraconazole and micafungin applied to 20 clinical Fusarium strains (members of Fusarium falciforme, Fusarium napiforme, Fusarium petroliphilum, Fusarium proliferatum, Fusarium pseudensiforme and Fusarium sacchari) were evaluated using a chequerboard microdilution method. The MICs of all drugs alone and in combination were determined visually after 48 h and interactions were assessed using fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI) analysis. RESULTS: MICs of voriconazole and natamycin alone were 4 to >16 and 4-8 mg/L, respectively. Values were reduced 3.5-10-fold to 0.02-0.5 mg/L and 0.5-5-fold to 0.13-2 mg/L in combination, for the currently used antifungals and natamycin, respectively, demonstrating additive to synergistic interactions. The combinations natamycin/voriconazole, natamycin/itraconazole and natamycin/micafungin were synergistic (FICI ≤0.5) for 70%, 15% and 5% of the strains, respectively. No antagonism was found. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of natamycin with voriconazole was strongly synergistic at clinically achievable serum concentrations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it