MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152626649 · doi:10.1101/2021.04.09.21255220

Metabolic Preference Assay for Rapid Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections

2021· preprint· en· W3152626649 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Rydzak, Ryan A. Groves, Ruichuan Zhang, Rajnigandha Pushpker, Maryam Mapar, Ian A. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntimicrobialSeptic shockMedicineAntibioticsBloodstream infectionAntimicrobial stewardshipTimelineBiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineSepsisMicrobiologyAntibiotic resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bloodstream infections (BSIs) cause >500,000 infections and >80,000 deaths per year in North America. The length of time between the onset of symptoms and administration of appropriate antimicrobials is directly linked to mortality rates. It currently takes 2-5 days to identify BSI pathogens and measure their susceptibility to antimicrobials – a timeline that directly contributes to preventable deaths. To address this, we developed a rapid metabolic preference assay (MPA) that uses the pattern of metabolic fluxes observed in ex-vivo microbial cultures to identify common pathogens and determine their antimicrobial susceptibility profiles. In a head-to-head race with a leading platform (VITEK 2) used in diagnostic laboratories, MPA decreased testing timelines from 40 hours to under 20. If put into practice, this assay could reduce septic shock mortality and reduce the use of broad spectrum antibiotics. One Sentence Summary Metabolomics enables rapid diagnosis of BSIs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207