MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764014446 · doi:10.24870/cjb.2017-a118

Next-Generation Sequencing for Typing and Detection of ESBL and MBL E. coli causing UTI

2017· article· en· W2764014446 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nabakishore Nayak, Mahesh Chanda Sahu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Biotechnology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypingMicrobiologyDNA sequencingMultilocus sequence typingBiologyVirologyMedicineGeneticsGeneGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has the potential to provide typing results and detect resistance genes in a single assay, thus guiding timely treatment decisions and allowing rapid tracking of transmission of resistant clones. We can be evaluated the performance of a new NGS assay during an outbreak of sequence type 131 (ST131) Escherichia coli infections in a teaching hospital. The assay will be performed on 100 extended-spectrum- beta-lactamase (ESBL) E. coli isolates collected from UTI during last 5 years. Typing results will be compared to those of amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP), whereby we will be visually assessed the agreement of the Bio-Detection phylogenetic tree with clusters defined by AFLP. A microarray will be considered the gold standard for detection of resistance genes. AFLP will be identified a large cluster of different indistinguishable isolates on adjacent departments, indicating clonal spread. The BioDetection phylogenetic tree will be showed that all isolates of this outbreak cluster will be strongly related, while the further arrangement of the tree also largely agreed with other clusters defined by AFLP. With these experiments we will detect the ESBL and MBL strains and the patient can be prescribed the antibiotics accordingly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BiotechnologySame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207