MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981925830 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1829

2149. Performance of a Gradient Diffusion Method (Etest®) on Mueller–Hinton Agar with Sheep Blood for Aerococcus urinae Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

2019· article· en· W2981925830 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tammy Berteau, France Emilie Roy, Julie Bestman‐Smith, Simon Grandjean-Lapierre, Jean Longtin, Simon-Frédéric Dufresne, Marc-Christian Domingo, Jean‐Michel Leduc

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtestMedicineBroth microdilutionMicrobiologyCiprofloxacinChocolate agarAgar dilutionAgarLevofloxacinAgar plateBiologyAntimicrobialMinimum inhibitory concentrationAntibioticsBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Aerococcus urinae is frequently identified by MALDI-TOF in urinary specimens. It is generally susceptible to β-lactams, but its susceptibility pattern to fluoroquinolones (FQ) remains unpredictable. The goal of this study was to evaluate the performance of the gradient diffusion method (Etest®) to determine FQ susceptibility compared with broth microdilution (BMD) and agar dilution (AD). Methods Prospectively collected isolates of A. urinae from urinary tract specimens originating from 5 hospitals in Quebec city and Montreal were identified by MALDI-TOF (Vitek-MS). All isolates were tested using BMD according to CLSI guidelines, and also with Etest® strips on MH agar w/ 5% sheep blood. Isolates showing trailing, insufficient growth or discordance between both methods were further tested by agar dilution (MH agar w/5% horse blood + β-NAD) according to EUCAST guidelines. Breakpoints were interpreted using CLSI M45-A3. Combined results of BMD and AD were then compared with Etest. Results Of the 207 isolates of A. urinae tested, 37 showed trailing (17,8%) and 19 (9,2%) insufficient growth with the BMD method and were retested using AD. Moreover, 38 isolates (ciprofloxacin) and 13 isolates (levofloxacin) showed either lack of categorical or essential agreement between Etest and BMD and were also retested using AD to arbitrate discrepancies. Susceptibility profiles combining BMD and AD are presented in Table 1. As suggested in EUCAST guidelines, readings were much clearer and growth was better with AD compared with BMD. The categorical agreement of the Etest® with BMD+AD was 95% for ciprofloxacin and 97% for levofloxacin. Essential agreement was 95% for ciprofloxacin and 97% for levofloxacin. No very major errors were identified. Two major errors were identified for levofloxacin (1,2%) and one for ciprofloxacin (0.6%). Conclusion Gradient diffusion method using Etest® strips on MH agar w/ sheep blood is a valid method to determine susceptibility to FQ for urinary tract isolates. As a reference method, AD provides clearer endpoints and better growth than BMD for FQ susceptibility testing. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.264
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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