MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quality Control Limits for Voriconazole Disk Susceptibility Tests on Mueller-Hinton Agar with Glucose and Methylene Blue

2004· article· en· W4230469386 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Pfaller, A L Barry, Jacques Billé, Steven D. Brown, David Ellis, Jacques F. Meis, Robert Rennie, Michael G. Rinaldi, Thomas R. Rogers, Maria M. Traczewski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgarMethylene blueCandida kruseiMicrobiologyCandida albicansCandida parapsilosisVoriconazoleCandida tropicalisAgar plateAgar dilutionBiologyAgar diffusion testChemistryChromatographyMinimum inhibitory concentrationAntifungalBacteriaBiochemistryAntimicrobialEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An international collaborative study was performed in order to propose quality control limits for voriconazole disk diffusion tests on Mueller-Hinton agar with 2% glucose and 0.5 micro g of methylene blue per ml. The supplement may be added to the agar before autoclaving, or Mueller-Hinton agar plates may be flooded with a glucose-methylene blue solution. Replicate tests on both types of agar plates with 1- micro g voriconazole disks generated data to propose zone size limits for tests of Candida parapsilosis ATCC 22019 (28 to 37 mm), Candida albicans ATCC 90028 (31 to 42 mm), and Candida krusei ATCC 6258 (16 to 25 mm). Candida tropicalis ATCC 750 was not useful for this purpose.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207