Susceptibility Testing and Reporting of New Antibiotics with a Focus on Tedizolid: An International Working Group Report
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
Inappropriate use and overuse of antibiotics are among the most important factors in resistance development, and effective antibiotic stewardship measures are needed to optimize outcomes. Selection of appropriate antimicrobials relies on accurate and timely antimicrobial susceptibility testing. However, the availability of clinical breakpoints and in vitro susceptibility testing often lags behind regulatory approval by several years for new antimicrobials. A Working Group of clinical/medical microbiologists from Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the UK recently examined issues surrounding antimicrobial susceptibility testing for novel antibiotics. While commercially available tests are being developed, potential surrogate antibiotics may be used as marker of susceptibility. Using tedizolid as an example of a new antibiotic, this special report makes recommendations to optimize routine susceptibility reporting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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