Performance Equivalence and Validation of a Rapid Microbiological Method for Detection and Quantification of Yeast and Mold in an Antacid Oral Suspension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative and rapid microbiological methods can be effective replacements for more traditional plating approaches for ensuring quality and safety in the pharmaceutical industry. This article compares the efficacy of the Soleris automated method and the traditional plate-count method for the quantitative detection of yeasts and molds at three different microbial bioburden levels. Validation testing was carried out using an antacid oral suspension (aluminum hydroxide 4% + magnesium hydroxide 4% + simethicone 0.4%). Equivalence of data between detection time and colony-forming units was established for both the alternative and the conventional methodologies. Using probability of detection, linear Poisson regression, Fisher9s test, and multifactorial analysis of variance (ANOVA), all results from the rapid method were shown to be in statistical agreement with the those of the reference plating procedures. The limits of detection and quantification were statistically similar for both methods (Fisher9s exact test, P > 0.05), showing that the alternative method is not inferior in performance to the reference method. Essential validation parameters such as precision (standard deviation <5, coefficient of variance <35%), accuracy (>70%), linearity (R2 >0.9025), ruggedness (ANOVA, P < 0.05), operative range, and specificity were determined. It was shown that all the test results obtained using the alternative method were in statistical agreement with the those of the standard plate-count method. Thus, this new technology was found to meet all the validation criteria needed to be considered as an alternative method for yeast and mold quantification in the antacid oral suspension tested. However, taking into account that the present validation was carried out utilizing A. brasiliensis and C. albicans as suitable models for yeasts and molds and with an antacid oral suspension as a pharmaceutical matrix, further investigation will be required to qualify Soleris technology for other environmental isolates and recovery of these isolates from production batches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".