DETERMINAÇÃO DA SENSIBILIDADE DE PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA UTILIZANDO UM KIT QUE EVIDENCIA SE ESTÃO VIVAS OU MORTAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Realizar as concentrações inibitórias mínimas (CIM) de Pseudomonas aeruginosa para polimixina B, meropenem e ceftazidima/avibactam e, posteriormente, comparar a categoria desses antimicrobianos com a viabilidade da bactéria pela metodologia de fluorescência. Método: Foram utilizados 50 isolados de Pseudomonas aeruginosa provenientes de hemoculturas de 17 de agosto a 7 de dezembro de 2021. Para o ensaio de imunofluorescência, foram utilizadas as seguintes concentrações para polimixina B (0,5 a 8 µg/ml), meropenem (1 a 16 µg/ml) e ceftazidima/avibactam (1 a 16 µg/ml), utilizando-se o kit L’12152 “The LIVE/DEAD BacLight Bacterial Viability”. Simultaneamente, foi realizada a microdiluição em caldo (método de referência) para comparar os resultados com o método em avaliação (imunofluorescência). Conclusão: Em relação à taxa de concordância entre os métodos para o meropenem, foram obtidos 98%; para ceftazidima/avibactam, 96%, e para polimixina B, 94%. O método apresentou boa concordância, mostrando-se uma possível validação do teste. O kit possibilita liberação do resultado em até 3 horas, o que permite uma precoce adequação da terapia antimicrobiana. Referências: 1. Rigatto MH, et al. Clinical use of polymyxin B. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Switzerland. 2019: 197-218. Trimble MJ, et al. Polymyxin: alternative mechanisms of action and resistance. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of British Columbia, Canada. 2016: 1-22.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".