Choice of Antibiotics in Late Neonatal Sepsis in the Extremely Low Birth Weight Infant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the choice of antibiotics in treating suspected late neonatal sepsis in infants weighing 1000 g or less in a neonatal intensive care unit. METHODS: Retrospective review of medical records. RESULTS: Ninety-six infants weighing 1000 g or less were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit during the study period. Sixty-two infants survived beyond four days of life and had at least one sepsis workup done to exclude late neonatal infection. Of the 62 study patients, 42 (68%) were started on ampicillin and netilmicin (A/N) and 20 (32%) were started on vancomycin and ceftizoxime (V/C) as the antibiotics of choice, pending culture results. Of the patients started on A/N, 17 of 42 had a positive blood culture compared with 11 of 20 on V/C (40% versus 55%, P=0.40). The mean (+/-SD) birth weight of infants started on A/N was 793+/-133 g compared with a mean of 728+/-153 g in the group that received V/C (P=0.09). Seven patients died in the A/N group compared with three in the V/C group (16.7% versus 15%, P=0.84). In addition to the sepsis episode studied, before they were discharged from hospital, 21 of 42 (50%) infants in the A/N group had further workups for suspected sepsis, compared with 16 of 20 (80%) (P=0.048) infants initially given V/C. CONCLUSIONS: Ampicillin and netilmicin is a safe antibiotic combination for neonates suspected of late sepsis. This, in turn, may be important in reducing vancomycin overuse and the potential for bacterial resistance to this antimicrobial agent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".