MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025742951 · doi:10.1179/joc.2007.19.4.392

Antipneumococcal Activity of Ertapenem Compared with Gatifloxacin in a Temperature-Sensitive Murine Model of Acute Pneumonia

2007· article· en· W2025742951 on OpenAlexaff
Joyce C. S. de Azavedo, Linda Dresser, Carla Duncan, S.E. Walker, Donald E. Low, Darrin J. Bast

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemotherapy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGatifloxacinErtapenemStreptococcus pneumoniaeMicrobiologyPneumoniaMedicinePneumolysinAntibioticsInternal medicineBiologyLevofloxacinAntibiotic resistanceMeropenem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluoroquinolone-resistance among pneumococci is low; however the number of isolates with a single ParC mutation has increased. Consequently, more potent agents are needed to minimize resistance selection. We investigated the efficacy of ertapenem versus gatifloxacin in a temperature-sensitive mouse model of pneumonia caused by a wildtype Streptococcus pneumoniae strain (A66) and an isogenic mutant with a ParC mutation (R222). Treatment started at 24 h and lasted for 5 days. Temperature was used to assess disease progression before and during treatment. Of mice infected with either strain and treated at an early stage of infection, 79-94% of those given ertapenem survived compared with 56-61% given gatifloxacin. If treated at a later stage, the results were similar for ertapenem (71-84%) but were considerably lower for gatifloxacin (17-33%). Ertapenem was as bactericidal as gatifloxacin against A66 (94-100% vs 92-100%) but was superior to gatifloxacin against R222 (95-100% vs 50-77%). Ertapenem is a promising new treatment for patients with pneumococcal pneumonia, including those at risk of infection with a fluoroquinolone-resistant strain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ChemotherapySame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207