MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409245817 · doi:10.1099/acmi.0.000938.v3

Comparative genomics analysis of six Cutibacterium acnes strains isolated from contaminated platelet concentrates

2025· article· en· W4409245817 on OpenAlexafffund
Annika Flint, Dilini Kumaran, Kelly Weedmark, Franco Pagotto, Sandra Ramírez‐Arcos

Bibliographic record

VenueAccess Microbiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStreptococcal Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood ServicesUniversity of OttawaHealth Canada
FundersHealth CanadaCanadian Blood Services
KeywordsVirulenceBiologyGenomeMicrobiologyMobile genetic elementsContaminationWhole genome sequencingBacteriaWhole bloodGeneImmunologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cutibacterium acnes is a bacterial skin commensal that is often isolated during routine testing of blood products like platelet concentrates (PCs). Due to the slow-growing nature of this bacterium in culture media, C. acnes contaminated PCs are often transfused into vulnerable patients before retrieval of these units can be initiated. This study aimed at obtaining the whole-genome sequence of six C. acnes isolates derived from contaminated PCs, comparing and assessing their genetic backgrounds. Furthermore, the whole genomes of the PC isolates were compared to clinical isolates obtained from different sites and types of infection. The results indicate that these PC isolates assessed belong to four phylotypes, namely IA, IB, II and III. Whole-genome comparisons identified differences in the virulence profiles of the isolates and provide a foundation for future studies aimed at evaluating the risk to transfusion patients by determining whether the expression of virulence factors is impacted in the PC storage environment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.345
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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccess MicrobiologySame topicStreptococcal Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207