MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385408358 · doi:10.1186/s12879-023-08472-w

Concordance between culture, Molecular Culture and Illumina 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing of bone and ulcer bed biopsies in people with diabetic foot osteomyelitis

2023· article· en· W4385408358 on OpenAlexaff
Meryl Cinzía Tila Tamara Gramberg, Carmen Knippers, Rimke Sabine Lagrand, Jarne M. van Hattem, Marcus Christofoor de Goffau, Andries E. Budding, Mark Davids, Sébastien Matamoros, Max Nieuwdorp, Vincent de Groot, Martin den Heijer, Louise Willy Elizabeth Sabelis, Edgar J.G. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Infectious Diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersDiabetes FondsAmsterdam University Medical Centers
KeywordsDiabetic foot ulcerConcordanceOsteomyelitisMedical microbiology16S ribosomal RNAAmpliconDiabetic footMedicineAmplicon sequencingParasitologyBiologyPathologyInternal medicineGeneMicrobiologyDiabetes mellitusGeneticsSurgeryPolymerase chain reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) relies on cultures of bone or ulcer bed (UB) biopsies, of which bone biopsy is reference standard. The slow growth or fastidious nature of some bacteria, hamper expeditious detection and identification. Rapid molecular techniques may solve both issues, but their additional value for everyday practice is unknown. We investigated the concordance between conventional culture, the molecular techniques Molecular Culture (MC), and illumina 16S rRNA gene amplicon (16S) sequencing in people with DFO. METHODS: In the BeBoP trial, bone and UB biopsies were obtained from people with DFO who visited Amsterdam UMC. These biopsies were analysed using 1) conventional culture, 2)MC, a rapid broad range PCR analysing the 16S-23S ribosomal-interspace-region, and 3) 16S sequencing, and evaluated concordance among these techniques. RESULTS: We analysed 20 samples (11 bone and 9 UB) of 18 people. A total of 84 infectious agents were identified, 45 (54%) by all techniques, an additional 22 (26.5%, overall 80.5%) by both MC and 16S, and the remaining 16 species by culture and MC or 16S, or by a single method only. MC and 16S identified anaerobes not detected by culturing in 5 samples, and the presence of bacteria in 7 of 8 culture-negative (6 bone, 2 UB) samples. CONCLUSION: The high level of concordance between MC and 16S and the additional ability of molecular techniques to detect various bacteria not detected by culturing opens up prospects for routine use of fast molecular techniques, in clinical settings including DFO. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The BeBoP trial is retrospectively registered on 05-03-2019 in Netherlands Trial Register: NL 7582.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Infectious DiseasesSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207