Cyclacillin, a Semisynthetic Aminoalicyclic Penicillin. I. Antibacterial Activity in vitro and in vivo Compared with Ampicillin and Cephalexin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyclacillin was compared with cephalex-in and ampicillin for activity against various patho- gens in vitro and the corresponding infections they produce in mice. Cyclacillin was superior to cephalex- in in vitro and in vivo against penicillin-sensitive S. aureus and Strep, pyogenes. Against penicillin- ase-producing staphylococci, cyclacillin was clearly superior to cephalexin in vivo, while in vitro cephalexin was the more active of the two. Cyclacillin and ampicilin were about equally active in vivo against Strep, pyogenes, D. pneumoniae and penicillin-sensitive staphylococci, while in vitro cyclacillin was somewhat less active than ampicillin. Against penicillin-resistant staphylococci, cyclacillin was active while ampicillin was not. Against gram-negative organisms cyclacillin was less active both in vitro and in vivo than ampicillin. Faced with an increasing challenge by the penicillin-sensitive cocci (i. e., treatment of mice infected with 100 to 100,000 LD95), cyclacillin was clearly and consistently superior to ampicillin. The high order of therapeutic activity exhibited by this agent cannot be predicted from the in vitro susceptibility data. There is no satisfactory explanation for this disparity, which is known to occur also with some other antimicrobial agents. The present results confirm the need for careful consideration of all the relevant biologic parameters before extrapolating in vitro data to the clinical situation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".