Efficacy and safety of gemifloxacin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized, double-blind comparison with trovafloxacin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This multicentre, randomized, double blind, parallel group study compared the efficacy and safety of gemifloxacin (320 mg once daily) with trovafloxacin (200 mg once daily) in 571 patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Although treatment was given routinely for 7 days it could be extended to 14 days; two-thirds of patients were treated for 7 days. High clinical success rates were noted at follow-up in the per-protocol population in both the gemifloxacin group (95.8%) and the trovafloxacin group (93.6%), non-inferiority with 95% CI. In the intent-to-treat population, the clinical success rate at follow-up was significantly superior for gemifloxacin (87.6%) compared with trovafloxacin (81.1%; 95% CI 0.5, 12.4). The pathogens identified most commonly at presentation were Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Gemifloxacin eradicated 100% of S. pneumoniae. One bacteraemic isolate of S. pneumoniae was associated with clinical failure in the trovafloxacin group (MIC of trovafloxacin 8 mg/L). Gemifloxacin was well tolerated and the incidence of transient liver function abnormalities was very low. Gemifloxacin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients with CAP.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".