MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894588678 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1657

2001. Susceptibility of <i>Aerococcus urinae</i> to Fluoroquinolones: Broth Microdilution and Gradient Diffusion

2018· article· en· W2894588678 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tammy Berteau, France-Émilie Roy, Julie Bestman‐Smith, Simon Grandjean Lapierre, Jean Longtin, Simon-Frédéric Dufresne, Marc Christian Domingo, Jean‐Michel Leduc

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineSte. Anne's HospitalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtestBroth microdilutionCiprofloxacinLevofloxacinMicrobiologyMedicineAgarAgar diffusion testChocolate agarAgar dilutionMinimum inhibitory concentrationBiologyBacteriaAntibioticsAntibacterial activity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerococcus urinae is an emerging urinary pathogen frequently identified by MALDI-TOF. It is generally susceptible to β-lactams, however, its susceptibility pattern to fluoroquinolones (FQ) remains variable. The goals of this study were (i) to evaluate the performance of the gradient diffusion method (Etest®) to determine FQ resistance compared with broth microdilution (BMD) and (ii) to estimate the resistance rate of A. urinae toward FQ in Quebec hospitals. Two hundred seven consecutive isolates of A. urinae from urinary tract specimens originating from five hospitals in Quebec and Montreal were identified by MALDI-TOF (Vitek-MS and Bruker). All isolates were tested with the BMD and gradient diffusion methods. BMD was carried out in triplicate and was conducted in accordance with CLSI guidelines (M45-A3). Isolates with insufficient growth at 24 hours were reincubated and evaluated at 48 hours. The gradient diffusion method was carried out using Etest® strips on MH agar with 5% sheep blood. Of the 207 isolates of A. urinae, 52 (25%) gave uninterpretable results using the BMD method (insufficient growth = 20; trailing = 32). We obtained the following results for the remaining 155 isolates: BMD readings were often complicated by noticeably poor growth. The categorical agreement of the Etest® was 83% for ciprofloxacin and 95% for levofloxacin. Four very major errors were identified in a preliminary manner on 11% (4/35) of the ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates and 11%(4/35) of the levofloxacin-resistant isolates. Agar dilution will be done to confirm these results. In our experience, the method recommended by the CLSI for A. urinae susceptibility testing of FQ presented several problems, including insufficient growth and difficult reading. The Etest® appears to be a promising method for susceptibility testing of FQ for urinary tract isolates, but will first require a further comparison with agar dilution methods. In our study, the rate of FQ non-susceptibility of A. urinae was 27% for levofloxacin and 33% for ciprofloxacin. Therefore, FQ cannot be empirically recommended for the treatment of urinary tract infections caused by A. urinae. J. M. Leduc, Biomérieux: Investigator, Research grant.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207