MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017870379 · doi:10.1039/d0an00479k

Nanodiagnostics to monitor biofilm oxygen metabolism for antibiotic susceptibility testing

2020· article· en· W3017870379 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Megan P. Jewell, Samuel C. Saccomano, Alexa A. David, J. Kirk Harris, Edith T. Zemanick, Kevin J. Cash

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Sensors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersColorado School of MinesChildren's Hospital Colorado Research Institute
KeywordsBiofilmOxygen metabolismOxygenAntibioticsNanosensorChemistryMicrobiologyEnvironmental chemistryBacteriaBiochemistryBiologyNanotechnologyMaterials scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In clinical environments, many serious antibiotic-resistant infections are caused by biofilm-forming species. This presents issues when attempting to determine antimicrobial dosing as traditional antibiotic susceptibility tests (ASTs) are typically designed around planktonic bacteria and thus offer information that is not relevant to the biofilm phenotype present in the patient. Even the popular Calgary biofilm device may provide inaccurate minimum biofilm inhibitory concentrations (MBICs) and can be time- and material-intensive. In this work, we present a method utilizing oxygen-sensitive nanosensor technology to monitor the oxygen consumption dynamics of living biofilms as they are exposed to antibiotics. We incorporated our nanosensors into biofilms grown from P. aeruginosa strains of varying sensitivity to traditional classes of antibiotics. Through measuring nanosensor response under antibiotic administration we determined the concentrations able to cease biofilm metabolism. This method provides information on the MBIC as well as kinetic response information in a manner that requires fewer materials and is more reflective of biofilm behavior than a traditional AST.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and SensorsFrench-language works237,207