MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254172215 · doi:10.1159/000239032

Antimicrobial Activity of Subinhibitory Concentrations of Ciprofloxacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa as Determined by the Killing Curve Method and the Postantibiotic Effect

2009· article· en· W4254172215 on OpenAlexaff
George G. Zhanel, Joanne Crampton, Sung Hoon Kim, Lindsay E. Nicolle, Ross Davidson, Daryl J. Hoban

Bibliographic record

VenueChemotherapy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCiprofloxacinPseudomonas aeruginosaMicrobiologyMinimum inhibitory concentrationAntimicrobialBiologyChemistryAntibioticsBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This investigation used the postantibiotic effect (PAE) and killing curves to examine the antimicrobial activity of subinhibitory (1/8x, 1/4x and 1/2x MIC) and inhibitory (1x MIC) concentrations of ciprofloxacin against mucoid (M) and nonmucoid (NM) urinary isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Subinhibitory concentrations (1/8x, 1/4x and 1/2x MIC) of ciprofloxacin produced PAEs with no difference between M and NM strains. For NM strains, those with low MICs (< or = 1.0 mg/l) to ciprofloxacin produced significantly longer PAEs than isolates with high MICs (> 1 mg/l). Killing curve studies demonstrated that subinhibitory concentrations of ciprofloxacin produce little effect (1/8x MIC) or stasis (1/4x and 1/2x MIC) of growth for several hours. Only 1x MIC was bactericidal for several strains. At 1/2x and 1x MIC, bacterial inhibition was greater against NM versus M isolates. The M phenotype of P. aeruginosa reduces killing by ciprofloxacin but not the PAE.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemotherapySame topicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsFrench-language works237,207