MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401706319 · doi:10.1128/cmr.00215-21

Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology Laboratories: Updated guidance for processing respiratory tract samples from people with cystic fibrosis

2024· review· en· W4401706319 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Microbiology Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCystic Fibrosis Foundation
KeywordsCystic fibrosisClinical microbiologyMedicineRespiratory tractMedical physicsRespiratory tract infectionsMicrobiologyIntensive care medicinePathologyRespiratory systemInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY This guidance presents recommendations for clinical microbiology laboratories for processing respiratory samples from people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF). Appropriate processing of respiratory samples is crucial to detect bacterial and fungal pathogens, guide treatment, monitor the epidemiology of cystic fibrosis (CF) pathogens, and assess therapeutic interventions. Thanks to CF transmembrane conductance regulator modulator therapy, the health of pwCF has improved, but as a result, fewer pwCF spontaneously expectorate sputum. Thus, the collection of sputum samples has decreased, while the collection of other types of respiratory samples such as oropharyngeal and bronchoalveolar lavage samples has increased. To optimize the detection of microorganisms, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Staphylococcus aureus , Haemophilus influenzae , and Burkholderia cepacia complex; other less common non-lactose fermenting Gram-negative bacilli, e.g., Stenotrophomonas maltophilia , Inquilinus , Achromobacter , Ralstonia , and Pandoraea species; and yeasts and filamentous fungi, non-selective and selective culture media are recommended for all types of respiratory samples, including samples obtained from pwCF after lung transplantation. There are no consensus recommendations for laboratory practices to detect, characterize, and report small colony variants (SCVs) of S. aureus , although studies are ongoing to address the potential clinical impact of SCVs. Accurate identification of less common Gram-negative bacilli, e.g., S. maltophilia , Inquilinus , Achromobacter , Ralstonia , and Pandoraea species, as well as yeasts and filamentous fungi, is recommended to understand their epidemiology and clinical importance in pwCF. However, conventional biochemical tests and automated platforms may not accurately identify CF pathogens. MALDI-TOF MS provides excellent genus-level identification, but databases may lack representation of CF pathogens to the species-level. Thus, DNA sequence analysis should be routinely available to laboratories for selected clinical circumstances. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is not recommended for every routine surveillance culture obtained from pwCF, although selective AST may be helpful, e.g., for unusual pathogens or exacerbations unresponsive to initial therapy. While this guidance reflects current care paradigms for pwCF, recommendations will continue to evolve as CF research expands the evidence base for laboratory practices.

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.297 · 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