Antibacterial Activity of Tobramycin against Gram-Negative Bacteria and the Combination of Ampicillin/Tobramycin against E. coli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The antibacterial activity of tobramycin, gentamicin, erythromycin, cloxacillin, kanamycin, cephalexin, penicillin, carbenicillin and polymyxin were compared against 303 clinical bacterial isolates from a pediatric hospital patient population. Standard disk diffusion and agar-dilution methods were employed. Significant activity was demonstrated for tobramycin against pseudomonas, Klebsiella, Escherichia coli and both Staphylococcus aureus and albus; Tobramycin was significantly more active against Pseudomonas than gentamicin or the other antibiotics testedmcomparable activity to gentamicin was present for the other types of bacteria; Cross-resistance was not encountered between tobramycin and gentamicin. 30 isolates of E. coli were tested against the combination of tobramycin and ampicillin by the growth-curve method. Synergism was demonstrated in 4 isolates, antagonism in 1 and an additive effect in 25. A bactericidal effect was present at 24h against 17 isolates with tobramycin alone and against 25 isolates when combined with ampicillin. These results provide in vitro rationale for the consideration of tobramycin for clinical use in patients with Psuedomonas infections for the combination of ampicillin and tobramycin for the treatment of selected E.coli infections.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".