MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388531033 · doi:10.3390/microbiolres14040126

Model of Pulmonary Co-Infection of Aspergillus and Pseudomonas in Immunocompetent Mice

2023· article· en· W4388531033 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gabriele Sass, David A. Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool of Medicine, Stanford UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsIn vivoCystic fibrosisMicrobiologyBeadAspergillus fumigatusClearanceAspergillusPseudomonas aeruginosaLungIn vitroChemistryMedicineBiologyBacteriaMaterials scienceInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Co-infection with Pseudomonas (Pa) and Aspergillus (Af) commonly occurs in the airways of immune-compromised patients or in cystic fibrosis and frequently results in more severe outcomes than mono-infection. We affixed both pathogens to agar beads, separately (Af beads, Pa beads) or on the same bead (AfPa beads) and infected immunocompetent mice, an in vivo Af-Pa interaction model. Endotracheal administration was superior to intranasal, allowing larger beads to be administered resulting in longer lung residence. The CFU of the Af beads, diameter 150–250 µm, were detectable for ≤21 days. Af-bead-infected mice cleared the Af infection more than mice infected with AfPa beads, but Af clearance was the same with a combination of beads (Af beads + Pa beads). Pa-infected mice had more Pa clearance in the presence of Af than with Pa beads alone. In vitro studies supported our conclusion that the close proximity of Af and Pa (on AfPa beads) was disadvantageous for Af, whereas a larger distance (Af + Pa beads) was not. We demonstrated that the interaction between Pseudomonas and Aspergillus during co-infection can be studied in immunocompetent mice. The mutual inhibition of Af and Pa in vivo appears to be dependent on their proximity. We review the literature relating to animal models of infection with Af, Pa, or both.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiology ResearchSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207