A single dose of azithromycin was more effective than ciprofloxacin for severe cholera in men in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saha D, Karim MM, Khan WA, et al. Single-dose azithromycin for the treatment of cholera in adults. N Engl J Med 2006;354:2452–62. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Are single dose azithromycin and single dose ciprofloxacin equivalent for treatment of severe cholera in adults? Clinical impact ratings Tropical & travel medicine ★★★★★★★ Infectious disease ★★★★★★☆ Endocrine ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: {concealed*}†. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: blinded {patients, healthcare providers, data collectors, outcome assessors, data analysts, and monitoring committee}†.* ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: 48 hours (for primary outcome). ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: a diarrhoea treatment centre in Dhaka, Bangladesh. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 198 men 18–60 years of age (median age 25 y) who had watery diarrhoea for ⩽24 hours, severe dehydration, a high purging rate (stool volume ⩾20 ml/kg body weight over a 4 hour period after initial rehydration), and isolation of Vibrio cholerae O1 or O139 from a stool or rectal swab sample. Exclusion criteria were concomitant illness or receipt of an antimicrobial agent effective for treatment of cholera. ### ![Graphic][11]</img>Intervention: azithromycin, two 500 mg tablets, plus a placebo formulation of ciprofloxacin … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.issn%253D0028-4793%26rft.aulast%253DSaha%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%26rft.volume%253D354%26rft.issue%253D23%26rft.spage%253D2452%26rft.epage%253D2462%26rft.atitle%253DSingle-dose%2Bazithromycin%2Bfor%2Bthe%2Btreatment%2Bof%2Bcholera%2Bin%2Badults.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa054493%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16760445%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa054493&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16760445&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F6%2F181.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000238100800007&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | medium |
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".