A comparison of antibiotic disks from different sources on Quicolor and Mueller-Hinton agar media in evaluation of antibacterial susceptibility testing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Antibacterial susceptibility testing of clinical bacterial isolates through disk diffusion method plays a major role in antibacterial treatment. One of the main factors affecting the result of these tests is the type, structure and quality of the disks. The main objective of this study was to compare the agreement of antibiotic disks originated from three companies on Quicolor and Mueller-Hinton agar. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ) were investigated in the study. After obtaining data, the results were interpreted as resistant, sensitive or intermediate. Kappa coefficient measured the agreement of two media. Coefficient of variation (CV) was also calculated for antibiotic disks. RESULTS: The kappa agreement values for three types of antibiotic disks on Quicolor and Mueller-Hinton agar plates were good or excellent for all the examined antibiotics. CV values were also very satisfactory in the majority of cases. CONCLUSION: Antibiotic disks from three manufacturers can successfully be used on both Quicolor and Mueller-Hinton agar plates.
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 | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".