MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406688271 · doi:10.1128/jcm.01480-24

Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for <i>Burkholderia cepacia</i> complex isolates from people with and without cystic fibrosis

2025· article· en· W4406688271 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Jorth, Carmila Manuel, Romney M. Humphries, Nicolynn C. Cole, Audrey N. Schuetz, Dennis Garica, Maria Maldonado, Anna Clara Milesi Galdino, Diana Celedonio, John J. LiPuma, Daniel A. Green, James E. A. Zlosnik, Maria M. Traczewski, Holly Huse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCystic Fibrosis Foundation
KeywordsEtestBurkholderia cepacia complexMicrobiologyCeftazidimeTrimethoprimBroth microdilutionBurkholderiaMeropenemLevofloxacinCystic fibrosisAgarMedicineAntimicrobialPseudomonas aeruginosaBiologyInternal medicineBacteriaMinimum inhibitory concentrationAntibioticsAntibiotic resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) is a group of Gram-negative bacteria that cause opportunistic infections, most notably in people with cystic fibrosis (CF), and have been associated with outbreaks caused by contaminated medical products. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is often used to guide treatment for BCC infections, perhaps most importantly in people with CF who are being considered for lung transplant. However, recent studies have highlighted problems with AST methods. Here, we address limitations from previous studies to further evaluate BCC AST methods. We assessed the performance of reference broth microdilution (BMD), disk diffusion (DD) using Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) from three manufacturers, agar dilution (AD), and gradient diffusion (ETEST) for ceftazidime (CAZ), levofloxacin (LVX), meropenem (MEM), minocycline (MIN), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) on a set of 205 BCC isolates. The isolate set included 100 isolates from people with CF and 105 isolates from people without CF from a variety of sources, which enabled us to systematically evaluate whether specimen source impacts AST performance. For all BCC isolates, BMD reproducibility was 93%, 98%, 99%, 98%, and 96% for CAZ, LVX, MEM, MIN, and TMP-SMX, respectively. Using BMD as the comparator method, we show that DD, AD, and ETEST perform poorly, with neither MHA manufacturer nor specimen source significantly impacting method performance. Based on our data, we recommend that routine AST should not be performed for BCC isolates. If a provider requests AST, clinical microbiology laboratories should perform Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute reference methodology for BMD (stored frozen) and report MIC only. IMPORTANCE Antimicrobial susceptibility testing for the Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) is often used to determine eligibility for lung transplant in people with cystic fibrosis. However, problems with method performance have been reported. Here, we systematically evaluate the performance of reference broth microdilution, disk diffusion, agar dilution, and gradient diffusion (ETEST) for BCC organisms isolated from people with and without cystic fibrosis. We show that broth microdilution reproducibility is acceptable for levofloxacin, meropenem, minocycline, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, while ceftazidime was just below the acceptability cut-off. Regardless of specimen source, the results from disk diffusion, agar dilution, and ETEST do not correlate with broth microdilution. Based on these findings, we recommend that antimicrobial susceptibility testing should not be routinely performed for BCC, and if requested by the provider, only broth microdilution following Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines should be used. Providers should be aware of the significant limitations of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for BCC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Microbiology→Same topicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances→French-language works237,207→