Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Clinafloxacin with Imipenem as Empirical Monotherapy for Febrile Granulocytopenic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a double-blind, multicenter trial, 541 febrile granulocytopenic patients were randomized to receive either intravenous (iv) clinafloxacin (200 mg every 12 h) or i.v. imipenem (500 mg every 6 h) as empirical monotherapy. More baseline pathogens were susceptible to clinafloxacin (259 [99%] of 262 organisms) than to imipenem (253 [95%] of 265; P=.03). Initial favorable clinical response rates for clinafloxacin (88 [32%] of 272 patients) and imipenem (89 [33%] of 269) were similar. After addition of other antimicrobial agents, overall response rates were 259 (95%) of 272 for clinafloxacin and 251 (93%) of 269 for imipenem. During the study, only 13 clinafloxacin (5%) and 18 imipenem (7%) recipients died. Both drugs were generally well tolerated. Drug-related skin rash occurred more often with clinafloxacin (11% vs. 6%; P=.07), whereas nausea (2% vs. 5%; P=.16), Clostridium-difficile-associated diarrhea (3% vs. 8%; P=.02), and seizures (0% vs. 2%; P=.06) occurred more often with imipenem. These results suggest that clinafloxacin and imipenem have similar efficacy as empirical monotherapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".