Bibliographic record
Abstract
482. 28. Crespo A, Retter AS, Lorber B. Group B streptococcal endocarditis in obstetric and gynecologic practice. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2003;11: 109-115. 29. Ebnother C, Altwegg M, Gottschalk J, Seebach JD, Kronenberg A. Endocarditis after urinary tract infection. Infection. 2002;30:212. 30. Glauser MP, Francioli P. Relevance of animal models to the prophylaxis of infective endocarditis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1987;20(suppl A): 87-98. 31. Overholser CD, Moreillon P, Glauser MP. Experimental bacterial endocarditis after dental extractions in rats with periodontitis. J Infect Dis. 1987; 155:107-112. 32. Bernard JP, Francioloi P, Glauser MP. Vancomycin prophylaxis of experimental Streptococcus sanguis: inhibition of bacterial adherence rather than bacterial killing. J Clin Invest. 1981;68:11131116. 33. Baltch AL, Schaffer C, Hammer MC, et al. Bacteremia following dental cleaning in patients with and without penicillin prophylaxis. Am Heart J. 1982; 104:1335-1339. 34. Hall G, Heimdahl A, Nord CE. Effects of prophylactic administration of cefaclor on transient bacteremia after dental extraction. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1996;15:646-649. 35. Hall G, Nord CE, Heimdahl A. Elimination of bacteraemia after dental extraction: comparison of erythromycin and clindamycin for prophylaxis of infective endocarditis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996;37:783-795. 36. Hall G, Hedstrom SA, Heimdahl A, Nord CE. Prophylactic administration of penicillins for endocarditis does not reduce the incidence of postextraction bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis. 1993; 17:188-194. 37. Durack DT, Petersdorf RG. Chemotherapy of experimental streptococcal endocarditis, I: Comparison of commonly recommended regimens. J Clin Invest. 1973;52:592-598. 38. Imperiale TF, Horwitz RI. Does prophylaxis prevent postdental infective endocarditis? a controlled evaluation of protective efficacy. Am J Med. 1990;88:131-136. 39. Horstkotte D, Rosin H, Friedrichs W, Loogen F. Contribution for choosing the optimal prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis. Eur Heart J. 1987; 8(suppl J):379-381. 40. Durack DT, Kaplan ET, Bisno AL. Apparent failures of endocarditis prophylaxis: analysis of 52 cases submitted to a national registry. JAMA. 1983; 250:2318-2322. 41. Seto TB, Thomas L, Baden LR, Manning WJ. Specialty and training differences in the reported use of endocarditis prophylaxis at an academic medical center. Am J Med. 2001;111:657-660. 42. Sanders GP, Yeon SB, Grunes J, Seto TB, Manning WJ. Impact of a specific echocardiographic report comment regarding endocarditis prophylaxis on compliance with American Heart Association recommendations. Circulation. 2002; 106:300-303.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".