Comparison of continuous infusion with intermittent bolus administration of cefotaxime on blood and cavity fluid drug concentrations in neonatal foals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hewson, J., Johnson, R., Arroyo, L. G., Diaz‐Mendez, A., Ruiz‐López, J. A., Gu, Y., del Castillo, J. R. E. Comparison of continuous infusion with intermittent bolus administration of cefotaxime on blood and cavity fluid drug concentrations in neonatal foals. J. vet. Pharmacol. Therap. 36 , 68–77. Healthy neonatal foals were treated with cefotaxime by bolus (40 mg/kg IV q6h for 12 doses; n = 10) or by infusion (loading dose of 40 mg/kg IV followed by continuous infusion of a total daily dose of 160 mg/kg per 24 h for 3 days; n = 5). Population pharmacokinetics was determined, and concentrations in cavity fluids were measured at steady state (72 h). Highest measured serum drug concentration in the bolus group was 88.09 μg/mL and minimum drug concentration (C min ) was 0.78 μg/mL at 6‐h postadministration (immediately before each next dose), whereas infusion resulted in a steady‐state concentration of 16.10 μg/mL in the infusion group. Mean cefotaxime concentration in joint fluid at 72 h was higher ( P = 0.051) in the infusion group (5.02 μg/mL) compared to the bolus group (0.78 μg/mL). Drug concentration in CSF at 72 h was not different between groups ( P = 0.243) and was substantially lower than serum concentrations in either group. Insufficient data on pulmonary epithelial lining fluid were available to compare the methods of administration for cefotaxime in this cavity fluid. Results support continuous drug infusion over bolus dosing in the treatment for neonatal foal septicemia to optimize time that cefotaxime concentration exceeds the minimum inhibitory concentration of common equine pathogens.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".