Optimal antimicrobial therapy: the balance of potency and exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial therapy has evolved to be an essential component for treating bacterial infection; however, the optimal duration of therapy continues to be defined for a number of different infections. Previously, uncomplicated infections of the lower and upper urinary tracts required treatment durations of 10-14 days and can now be successfully managed with < or = 3-7 days of oral therapy. Similarly, optimal durations of therapy for community-acquired respiratory tract infections continue to be defined with shorter durations being approved, based on the clinical outcome of comparative trials. The shorter durations of therapy are thought to clearly benefit patient care with improved compliance. But, are all of the approved antimicrobial compounds ideal for shorter durations of therapy? Optimal use of these compounds involves re-evaluating each drug's antimicrobial spectrum, pharmacological characteristics, clinical outcome and side-effects profiles, and a reduced likelihood of selecting drug-resistant bacteria during therapy (due to the current environment of global antimicrobial resistance and fewer new antimicrobials under development).
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".