Vancomycin versus Placebo for Treating Persistent Fever in Patients with Neutropenic Cancer Receiving Piperacillin-Tazobactam Monotherapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective, double-blind trial assessed whether the addition of a glycopeptide would be able to reduce the time to defervescence in neutropenic patients with cancer who had persistent fever 48-60 h after the initiation of empirical piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy. Of 763 eligible patients, 165 with persistent fever were randomized to receive piperacillin-tazobactam therapy plus either vancomycin therapy or placebo. Defervescence was observed in 82 (95%) of 86 patients in the vancomycin group and in 73 (92%) of 79 patients in the placebo group (P=.52). The distributions of the time to defervescence were not statistically significant between the 2 groups (estimated hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.43; P=.75). The number of additional episodes of gram-positive bacteremia and the percentage of patients for whom amphotericin B was empirically added to their therapy regimen were also similar in both groups. This study failed to demonstrate that the empirical addition of vancomycin therapy to the treatment regimen is of benefit to persistently febrile neutropenic patients with cancer.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it