Quality assurance for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of<i>Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i>in Latin American and Caribbean countries, 2013–2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives A Neisseria gonorrhoeae antimicrobial susceptibility quality control comparison programme was re-established in Latin America and the Caribbean to ensure antimicrobial susceptibility data produced from the region are comparable nationally and internationally. Methods Three panels, consisting of N. gonorrhoeae isolates comprising reference strains and other characterised isolates were sent to 11 participating laboratories between 2013 and 2015. Antimicrobial susceptibilities for these isolates were determined using agar dilution, Etest or disc diffusion methods. Modal minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for each panel isolate/antibiotic combination were calculated. The guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute were used for interpretations of antimicrobial susceptibility. The agreement of MICs with the modal MICs was determined for each of the participating laboratories as well as for each of the antibiotics tested. Results Five of 11 laboratories that participated in at least one panel had an overall average agreement between participants’ MIC results and modal MICs of >90%. For other laboratories, agreements ranged from 60.0% to 82.4%. The proportion of agreement between interpretations for all the antibiotics, except penicillin and tetracycline, was >90%. The percentages of agreement between MIC results and their modes for erythromycin, spectinomycin, cefixime and azithromycin were >90%. Tetracycline, ceftriaxone and ciprofloxacin agreement ranged from 84.5% to 89.1%, while penicillin had 78.8% agreement between MICs and modal MICs. Conclusions The participating laboratories had acceptable results, similar to other international quality assurance programmes. It is important to ensure continuation of the International Gonococcal Antimicrobial Susceptibility Quality Control Comparison Programme to ensure that participants can identify and correct any problems in antimicrobial susceptibility testing for N. gonorrhoeae as they arise and continue to generate reproducible and reliable data.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".