In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility of<i>Candida</i>Species Isolated from Iranian Patients with Denture Stomatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background.Candida-associated denture stomatitis (CADS) is a common fungal infection in people who wear dentures. The main objective of this study was to make molecular identification of causative agents of CADS and in vitro antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) in the Iranian patients with denture stomatitis.Methods. A total of 134Candidaspp. were obtained from patients with denture stomatitis. TheCandidaspp. were identified using a polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) involving the universal internal transcribed spacer (ITS1 and ITS4) primers, which were subjected to digestion with MspI and BlnI restriction enzymes. The in vitro antifungal susceptibility ofCandidaspp. to fluconazole (FLC), terbinafine (TRB), itraconazole (ITC), voriconazole (VRC), posaconazole (POS), ketoconazole (KET), amphotericin B (AMB), and caspofungin (CAS) was evaluated using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M27-A3 and M27-S4 guidelines.Results. Overall,C. albicanswas the most commonly isolated species ( n=84 ; 62.6%), followed byC. glabrata( n=23 ; 17.2%),C. tropicalis( n=16 ; 12%), andC. parapsilosis( n=11 ; 8.2%). Posaconazole had the lowest geometric mean minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) (0.03 μg/ml), followed by AMB (0.05 μg/ml), ITC (0.08 μg/ml), VRC (0.11 μg/ml), CAS (0.12 μg/ml), KET (0.15 μg/ml), and FLC (0.26 μg/ml).Discussion. Our study showed thatC. albicanswas most prevalent in Iranian patients with CADS and was susceptible to both azoles and amphotericin B. In addition, POS could be an appropriate alternative to the current antifungal agents used for the treatment of CADS, as well as in the treatment of recurrent candidiasis.
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 | 0.001 | 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".