The effect of melatonin on antifungal susceptibility in planktonic and biofilm forms of<i>Candida</i>strains isolated from clinical samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the significant increase in the isolation of antifungal resistant Candida species in presence of biofilm, have made it necessary to develop alternative agents for the treatment of these infections. In this study, the effect of antifungal susceptibility of melatonin were investigated in planktonic and biofilm forms of Candida strains isolated from the clinical samples sent to our laboratory. Biofilm formation was determined by modified microplate method. In order to determine antifungal susceptibility in biofilm-forming strains, MIC was determined by broth microdilution method in planktonic form, and MBEC values by Calgary biofilm method in biofilm form. Susceptibility tests were repeated in the presence of melatonin. Antifungal susceptibility tests repeated with antifungals combined with melatonin showed a decrease in both MIC and MBEC values; melatonin was found to be more effective especially in planktonic forms. While the most effective combination was achieved with fluconazole in the planktonic form, no statistically significant difference was found between the combinations in biofilm form. As a result, melatonin was thought to be a new alternative in the treatment of Candida infections.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".