MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408139988 · doi:10.1093/mmy/myaf019

Comparison of broth microdilution and Etest® methods for susceptibility testing of amphotericin B in <i>Candida auris</i>

2025· article· en· W4408139988 on OpenAlexaff
Domenica G. De Luca, Xiao Rui Li, David C. Alexander, Tanis C. Dingle, Philippe J. Dufresne, Linda Hoang, Julianne V. Kus, Caroline Sheitoyan-Pesant, Amrita Bharat

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Mycology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of TorontoSte. Anne's HospitalDr. Georges-L.-Dumont University Hospital CentreManitoba HealthProvincial Laboratory of Public HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of ManitobaToronto Public HealthPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtestCandida aurisBroth microdilutionAmphotericin BMicrobiologyAntifungalBiologyMedicineMinimum inhibitory concentrationAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amphotericin B remains an important treatment for multidrug-resistant Candida auris. Antifungal susceptibility testing of amphotericin B in C. auris can vary depending on the methodology used. Here, we compared the Etest method and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution reference method for amphotericin B against 60 clinical C. auris isolates from the four major clades. The minimum inhibitory concentrations differed significantly by method (P-value, <.0001), and discrepancies were observed in the interpretation of resistance (categorical agreement, 88.3%; very major error, 33.3%). Broth microdilution may represent a more conservative approach for detecting amphotericin B resistance in C. auris.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.421 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical MycologySame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207