MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2533217273 · doi:10.14740/jocmr2753w

<i>Propionibacterium acnes</i>: Time-to-Positivity in Standard Bacterial Culture From Different Anatomical Sites

2016· article· en· W2533217273 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rasha Abdulmassih, Jina Makadia, James Como, Michelle L. Paulson, Zaw Min, Nitin Bhanot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStreptococcal Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropionibacterium acnesMedicineIncubation periodIncubationAntibioticsEtiologyMicrobiologyInternal medicineSurgeryDermatologyBiologyAcne

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Propionibacterium acnes infections are likely under-recognized and underreported. This is partly because of low clinical suspicion, perceived non-pathogenicity, or lack of adequate culture incubation time. We conducted a study to assess the optimal incubation period to recover P. acnes from specimens acquired during the workup of suspected clinical infections. Methods: A 5-year retrospective chart review was conducted between January 2010 and December 2014 at a single tertiary-care hospital. All patient cases from which P. acnes was recovered were included for analysis. Source of infection, antibiotic use, and culture time-to-positivity (TTP) were recorded. Results: Implanted devices comprised the single most common source of P. acnes infection. In the majority of cases, P. acnes was the only organism identified. The mean incubation TTP for all isolates was 5.73 days. Conclusions: Standard 5-day culture incubation periods are insufficient to recover P. acnes . As a result, P. acnes is likely a much more common etiology of a variety of clinical infections than previously reported. J Clin Med Res. 2016;8(12):916-918 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jocmr2753w

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicStreptococcal Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207