Reporting Elevated Vancomycin Minimum Inhibitory Concentration in Methicillin-Resistant <i>Staphylococcus Aureus</i> : Consensus by An International Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) remains an important cause of serious infection, for which vancomycin is often recommended as the first-choice antibiotic treatment. Appropriate vancomycin prescribing requires accurate measurement of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) to avoid treatment failure, and yet determination can be challenging due to methodological difficulties associated with susceptibility testing. An International Working Group of infectious disease specialists and clinical/medical microbiologists reached a consensus that empirical MRSA infection therapies should be chosen regardless of the suspected origin of the infecting strain (e.g., community or hospital) due to the complex intermingling epidemiology of MRSA clones in these settings. Also, if an elevated vancomycin MIC in the susceptible range is obtained in routine testing, an alternative second method should be used for confirmation and to aid antibiotic therapy recommendations. There is no absolutely dependable method for the accurate determination of vancomycin MIC, but broth microdilution appears to be the most reliable.
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 | 0.028 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".