MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913581256 · doi:10.1002/9781119004813.ch10

Bacterial Stress Responses as Determinants of Antimicrobial Resistance

2016· other· en· W2913581256 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Fruci, Keith Poole

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntimicrobialBacteriaBiologyAntibiotic resistanceCell envelopeMicrobiologyOxidative stressResistance (ecology)Cell biologyImmunologyGeneGeneticsEscherichia coliEcologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacteria encounter a variety of growth-compromising conditions both in nature and in the hosts of pathogenic bacteria. These “stresses” elicit protective and/or adaptive responses that enhance bacterial survival in the face of the stress. Because they impact many of the same cellular constituents and processes that are targeted by antimicrobials, adaptive stress responses often influence antimicrobial susceptibility. Thus, cellular responses to nutrient limitation, oxidative stress, membrane damage (envelope stress), elevated temperature (heat stress), and other growth-compromising stresses promote antimicrobial resistance development as a result of their stimulation of protective changes to cell physiology, activation of resistance mechanisms, promotion of resistant lifestyles, induction of resistance mutations, and promotion of resistance gene transfer. As resistance determinants in their own right, therefore, stress responses may be appropriate targets for therapeutic intervention.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBacterial biofilms and quorum sensingFrench-language works237,207