MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099398179 · doi:10.1093/cid/cis390

Safety Analysis of Fidaxomicin in Comparison With Oral Vancomycin for Clostridium difficile Infections

2012· review· en· W2099398179 on OpenAlexaff
Karl Heinz Weiss, Robin L. Allgren, Stephanie Sellers

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFidaxomicinMedicineClostridium difficileVancomycinMicrobiologyGram-positive bacterial infectionsC difficileEnterocolitisClostridium InfectionsClostridiaceaeAntibioticsInternal medicineBacteriaStaphylococcus aureus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fidaxomicin is a novel macrocyclic antibiotic recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults. We reviewed safety data from nonclinical studies and clinical trials (phases 1, 2A, and 3) with fidaxomicin. In nonclinical studies, fidaxomicin was administered orally at approximately 1 g/kg/d to dogs for up to 3 months with no significant target-organ toxicities observed. A total of 728 adults have received oral fidaxomicin in clinical trials to date: 116 healthy volunteers and 612 patients with C. difficile infection. In phase 3 clinical trials, fidaxomicin was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable with oral vancomycin. There were no differences in the incidence of death or serious adverse events between the 2 drugs. Fidaxomicin appears to be well tolerated. Continued monitoring of adverse events in the postmarketing setting will provide additional information about the full safety profile of fidaxomicin.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207