ArticlePest management science2026
A geometric and probabilistic framework for mechanistic antifungal screening from colony morphology.
Article in Pest management science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFungicide discovery still relies heavily on scalar screening endpoints [e.g. inhibition zones, median effective concentration (EC
resultsFrom routine colony images, we computed a fixed-dose potency coordinate, λ, as the negative natural log of the area survival ratio, and a polarity coordinate, I, as the natural log fold-change in length-to-width ratio (treated/control). We then estimated polarity-disruption event probability (p̂) with exact 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence bounds at an operational threshold of τ = 1.10, with sensitivity analysis across τ = 1.10-1.20. In a single-dose primary screen across nine isolates and four phenolic-branched amide/acid candidates, amides consistently clustered in the (+λ, +I) quadrant, indicating an action direction characterized by concurrent growth suppression and polarity disruption relative to the acid analogues. The strongest combination was CGH5 treated with PhSOAM (λ = 0.67), which also showed high shape-disruption probability (p̂ = 0.75; 95% CI 0.43-0.95). Ellipse-based axis reconstruction linked I to axis-specific contraction ratios and showed strong agreement with direct length- and width-based ratios. Re-analysis of an independent UV-C exposure-time gradient (0-30 min) produced coherent dose-dependent λ(d) and I(d) trajectories and supported event-level inference at ~10 min.
conclusionThe λ-I-p grammar converts colony images into an instrument-agnostic screening language describing how strongly an intervention acts at the tested condition (λ), whether it is associated with polarity-linked geometry change (I) and how often a defined failure mode occurs (p̂), thereby supporting mechanistic screening and prioritization of candidate fungicides. Published 2026. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.