Comparison of real-time PCR with fungal culture for the diagnosis of <i>Microsporum canis</i> dermatophytosis in shelter cats: a field study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Fungal culture requires at least 14 days for a final result, compared with 1-3 days for PCR. The study compared a commercial real-time dermatophyte PCR panel with fungal culture in cats in a shelter setting for: (1) diagnosis of Microsporum canis infection; and (2) determination of mycological cure. Methods This was a cross-sectional, observational study of cats with suspicious skin lesions or suspected exposure to dermatophytosis. Hair samples were collected for fungal culture and PCR prior to treatment and at weekly intervals until two negative culture results were obtained. Results One hundred and thirty-two cats were included, of which 28 (21.2%) were culture positive and 104 (78.8%) culture-negative for M canis. PCR correctly identified all culture-positive cats and 92/104 culture negative cats; there were 12 false-positive PCR results. The sensitivity and specificity of PCR were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87.7-100) and 88.5% (95% CI 80.7-93.9), respectively. Data from 17 cats were available for assessment of mycological cure. At the time of the first and second negative fungal cultures, 14/17 (82.4%) and 11/17 (64.7%) tested PCR positive, respectively. Conclusions and relevance PCR showed high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of M canis dermatophytosis compared with fungal culture, but was unreliable for identifying mycological cure. False-positive results were relatively common. There were no false-negative PCR results and a negative PCR test was a reliable finding in this study. The ability to rapidly diagnose or rule out dermatophytosis could be a valuable tool to increase life-saving capacity in animal shelters.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".