Visual compatibility of oritavancin diphosphate with selected coadministered drugs during simulated Y-site administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The visual compatibility of the new intravenous antibiotic oritavancin diphosphate with various drugs commonly administered to patients in acute care settings was studied. METHODS: Clinically used concentrations of 37 drugs, including antibiotics, sedatives, analgesics, and cardiovascular agents, were evaluated in 1:1 mixtures with oritavancin concentrations of 0.8, 1.2, and 2 mg/mL. Oritavancin solutions were prepared in 5% dextrose injection and mixed with each test drug solution. The mixtures were then visually observed over a period of four hours at room temperature. The pH of the mixtures was also determined immediately and four hours after mixing. Compatibility was defined as the absence of any color change, haze, fibers, particles, and precipitate. RESULTS: Of the 37 tested drugs, 23 were visually compatible with all three concentrations of oritavancin over the four-hour study period. Drugs formulated at a basic or neutral pH were more likely to be incompatible with oritavancin. CONCLUSION: Oritavancin diphosphate was visually incompatible with many intravenous drugs that are likely to be coadministered in acute care settings.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".