Approach to managing patients with sulfa allergy: use of antibiotic and nonantibiotic sulfonamides.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present an approach to use of sulfonamide-based (sulfa) medications for patients with sulfa allergy and to explore whether sulfa medications are contraindicated for patients who require them but are allergic to them. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: A search of current pharmacology textbooks and of MEDLINE from 1966 to the present using the MeSH key words "sulfonamide" and "drug sensitivity" revealed review articles, case reports, one observational study (level II evidence), and reports of consensus opinion (level III evidence). MAIN MESSAGE: Cross-reactivity between sulfa antibiotics and nonantibiotics is rare, but on occasion it can affect the pharmacologic and clinical management of patients with sulfa allergy. CONCLUSION: How a physician approaches using sulfa medications for patients with sulfa allergy depends on the certainty and severity of the initial allergy, on whether alternatives are available, and on whether the contemplated agent belongs to the same category of sulfa medications (ie, antibiotic or nonantibiotic) as the initial offending agent.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".