In vitro activities of 15 antifungal drugs against a large collection of clinical isolates of <i>Microsporum canis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microsporum canis is a zoophilic species, found to be the most frequently isolated species in animals. M. canis causes sporadic outbreaks of infections in humans, such as the one that occurred in Canada, where more than 1000 human cases were detected over an 8-year period. Despite the medical importance of M. canis infections, there are limited in vitro data on the antifungal susceptibility to antifungal drugs, including new generation triazoles and imidazoles. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to comprehensively evaluate the in vitro activity of new azoles and comparator drugs against a large panel of M. canis isolates using a microdilution assay. METHODS: The in vitro susceptibility to novel triazoles and imidazoles was compared to that of other antifungal drugs using a large collection of M. canis clinical isolates (n = 208) obtained from patients and animals with dermatophytosis in Iran, France and Turkey. RESULTS: All isolates exhibited high susceptibility to the majority of the tested antifungal agents. However, luliconazole, lanoconazole and efinaconazole, as well as econazole, demonstrated superior activity against all strains in comparis on with the other drugs. CONCLUSION: FDA-approved antifungal drugs, that is luliconazole, efinaconazole and lanoconazole, showed the highest antifungal activity and should be promising candidates for the treatment of dermatophytosis caused by M canis. However, their therapeutic effectiveness remains to be determined in clinical settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".