Relationships between in vitro Susceptibility and Efficacy in Experimental Mouse Infection-Protection Assay of Cefazolin and Cephalothin using Escherichia coli Strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The disc sensitivity and minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of cefazolin and cephalothin were compared against a series of Escherichia coli isolates. These data were correlated with the mouse protective doses of the 2 cephalosporins in animals infected with E. coli strains selected according to their various degrees of in vitro sensitivity to the 2 cephalosporins. The overwhelming majority of E. coli strains showed a significantly higher degree of susceptibility and lower MIC values for cefazolin than for cephalothin. There has been found a good correlation between the inhibition zones and especially the MIC values and the ED50 results for both cephalosporins. Using E. coli clinical isolates, cefazolin was found to be superior to cephalothin not only in vitro experiments but also more potent in protecting the experimentally infected mice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".