A review of the current state of antimicrobial susceptibility test methods for <i>Brachyspira</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The re-emergence of swine dysentery (Brachyspira-associated muco-haemorrhagic colitis) since the late 2000s has illuminated diagnostic challenges associated with this genus. The methods used to detect, identify, and characterize Brachyspira from clinical samples have not been standardized, and laboratories frequently rely heavily on in-house techniques. Particularly concerning is the lack of standardized methods for determining and interpreting the antimicrobial susceptibility of Brachyspira spp. The integration of laboratory data into a treatment plan is a critical component of prudent antimicrobial usage. Therefore, the lack of standardized methods is an important limitation to the evidence-based use of antimicrobials. This review will focus on describing the methodological limitations and inconsistencies between current susceptibility testing schemes employed for Brachyspira, provide an overview of what we do know about the susceptibility of these organisms, and suggest future directions to improve and standardize diagnostic strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".