Terbinafine-Resistant Dermatophytes and the Presence of Trichophyton indotineae in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
resistance. Susceptibility testing was performed by CLSI broth microdilution methods, and species identification was performed by DNA sequence analysis. During this 2-year period, 271 dermatophyte isolates were included, the majority of which demonstrated low MIC values for terbinafine (geometric mean [GM] and modal MIC, 0.031 μg/mL and 0.008 μg/mL, respectively) and the azoles itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole (0.035 to 0.049 μg/mL and ≤0.03 μg/mL). However, 18.6% of the isolates tested were resistant to terbinafine (MIC ≥ 0.5 μg/mL), including 21 T. rubrum and 21 T. indotineae isolates. These isolates were received from several different states in the United States and two provinces in Canada. In contrast, resistance to itraconazole was relatively rare. We also searched our laboratory database for earlier isolates that were resistant to terbinafine and identified 3 additional T. indotineae isolates, the earliest of which was from 2017. These results demonstrate that terbinafine resistance in dermatophytes was relatively common over this 2-year period and that T. indotineae is present in multiple areas in North America. Continued surveillance is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".