Combination Therapy with Antibiotics and Anthrax Immune Globulin Intravenous (AIGIV) Is Potentially More Effective than Antibiotics Alone in Rabbit Model of Inhalational Anthrax
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of AIGIV when given in combination with levofloxacin and the effective window of treatment to assess the added benefit provided by AIGIV over standard antibiotic treatment alone in a New Zealand white rabbit model of inhalational anthrax. METHODS: Rabbits were exposed to lethal dose of aerosolized spores of Bacillus anthracis (Ames strain) and treated intravenously with either placebo, (normal immune globulin intravenous, IGIV) or 15 U/kg of AIGIV, along with oral levofloxacin treatment at various time points (30-96 hours) after anthrax exposure. RESULTS: The majority of treated animals (>88%) survived in both treatment groups when treatment was initiated within 60 hours of post-exposure. However, reduced survival of 55%, 33% and 25% was observed for placebo + levofloxacin group when the treatment was initiated at 72, 84 and 96 hours post-exposure, respectively. Conversely, a survival rate of 65%, 40% and 71% was observed in the AIGIV + levofloxacin treated groups at these time points. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of AIGIV with antibiotics provided an improvement in survival compared to levofloxacin treatment alone when treatment was delayed up to 96 hours post-anthrax exposure. Additionally, AIGIV treatment when given as an adjunct therapy at any of the time points tested did not interfere with the efficacy of levofloxacin.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".