Standardized reactors for the study of medical biofilms: a review of the principles and latest modifications
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
Biofilms can cause severe problems to human health due to the high tolerance to antimicrobials; consequently, biofilm science and technology constitutes an important research field. Growing a relevant biofilm in the laboratory provides insights into the basic understanding of the biofilm life cycle including responses to antibiotic therapies. Therefore, the selection of an appropriate biofilm reactor is a critical decision, necessary to obtain reproducible and reliable in vitro results. A reactor should be chosen based upon the study goals and a balance between the pros and cons associated with its use and operational conditions that are as similar as possible to the clinical setting. However, standardization in biofilm studies is rare. This review will focus on the four reactors (Calgary biofilm device, Center for Disease Control biofilm reactor, drip flow biofilm reactor, and rotating disk reactor) approved by a standard setting organization (ASTM International) for biofilm experiments and how researchers have modified these standardized reactors and associated protocols to improve the study and understanding of medical biofilms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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