MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791675566 · doi:10.1128/jcm.01892-17

Analysis of Potential β-Lactam Surrogates To Predict <i>In Vitro</i> Susceptibility and Resistance to Ceftaroline for Clinical Isolates of Enterobacteriaceae

2018· article· en· W2791675566 on OpenAlexaff
Meredith Hackel, Joseph P. Iaconis, James A. Karlowsky, Daniel F. Sahm

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnterobacteriaceaeLactamMicrobiologyCephalosporinIn vitroBiologyEnterobacteriaceae InfectionsBeta-lactamAntibioticsChemistryEscherichia coliGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Ceftaroline fosamil was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2010 and by the European Medicines Agency in 2012. As of April 2017, only one commercial antimicrobial susceptibility testing device offered a Gram-negative panel that included ceftaroline. This circumstance is unfortunate, as many clinical microbiology laboratories rely solely on commercial devices to generate in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing results for common bacterial pathogens. In lieu of device-based testing of clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae , laboratories wishing to test ceftaroline must either opt for disk diffusion testing or use a gradient strip; however, both alternatives interrupt laboratory workflow and require additional labor and expense. Identification of a reliable surrogate β-lactam to predict in vitro susceptibility to ceftaroline may offer another interim solution as laboratories await availability of ceftaroline for testing on their commercial devices. We tested six β-lactams (aztreonam, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, cefoxitin, and cefpodoxime) as potential surrogates for ceftaroline against a collection of 543 clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae selected to approximate the distribution of ceftaroline MICs observed in AWARE global surveillance studies conducted in 2013. All six potential surrogates generated very major error rates of 16.3% to 56.6%, far exceeding the accepted limit of 1.5% set by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Failure to identify a reliable surrogate to predict in vitro susceptibility and resistance to ceftaroline for clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae underscores the need for expedited addition of newer antimicrobial agents to commercial antimicrobial susceptibility testing devices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and EfficacyFrench-language works237,207