The evaluation of in vitro activity of potentially antifungal compounds by microdilution broth method. VIII.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kvítková L.: Evaluation of in vitro activity of potentially antifungal compounds by microdilution broth method - VIII. Over 250 new synthetized compounds divided into 16 chemical groups were tested by microdilution broth method for the establisment of in vitro antifungal activity. This method is based on the standard M27-A (Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute). RPMI 1640 medium buffered to pH 7.0 with MOPS was used and standardized inoculum was prepared from fresh fungal isolates grown on Sabouraud agar. All compounds tested were dissolved and diluted in DMSO. The MICs were determinated visually after 24 or 48 hours of incubation at 35C. The compounds were tested against eight fungal strains. The structure-activity relationships were studied and compared with the calculated log P values. Hydrophobicity of compounds (log P) was computed using the program ACD/LogP (Advanced Chemistry Development Inc., Ontario, Canada). The most active compounds were the derivatives of (E)-1-pyrazine-2- ylethane-1-one-thiosemicarbazone; the majority of the compounds showed moderate or high efficacy against all fungal strains tested. There were several compounds of the groups tested with a considerable antifungal effect, as well. The most susceptible fungal strain was Trichophyton mentagrophytes, on the contrary,...
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".