CIDM 35 Years · Living Scientific Memory

From Clinical Microbiology to Living Scientific Memory

A living, versioned paper and visual review of CIDM across 35 publication years. The release is designed to be updated as full-text coverage, figures, tables, references and corrections improve.

1,947fixed publication objects
1992–202635 publication years
265object-level verified FULL
1,538ABSTRACT reviewed
144METADATA reviewed
Living evidence note. A historical aggregate state of 273 FULL is preserved, but eight records remain lineage-held. This public release uses 265 object-level verified FULL. Route discovery, stored binaries and scientific FULL review remain separate states.
First page of the CIDM 35 Years paper
Paper · v0.81 · 8 Oct 2026

CIDM at 35

Full living manuscript with figures, tables, evidence-depth boundaries, references and clickable source-return cases.

Title slide of the CIDM 35 Years keynote
Visual review / keynote · v0.2 · 8 Oct 2026

CIDM 35 Years Keynote

A 30-slide visual narrative: institutional life history, methods evolution, scientific memory, review fidelity and concrete cases.

How to explore

Paper
Long-form interpretation with figures, tables and references.
Visual review
Fast narrative for meetings, teaching and conference discussion.
Full-text cases
Direct links to inspect representative source papers yourself.
Data supplements
Reproducible Microbe × Methods and evidence-depth workbooks.

Data supplements

Microbe × Methods Observatory v0.1 — reproducible title-derived chronology and matrix.

Evidence-Depth Overlay v0.2 — FULL / ABSTRACT / METADATA overlays reconciled to 265 object-level verified FULL.

Release manifest · Case-link provenance · Release README

Release principles

Preserve versions
New evidence creates a new release; earlier states remain traceable.
Preserve unknowns
Unresolved lineage and evidence-depth gaps remain visible.
Citation ≠ evidence
Important claims should survive source return.
Positive + reverse review
Learn what worked, what can improve, and what the reviewer got wrong.