Respiratory Fluoroquinolones: Differences in the Details
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir—We would like to both comment on and expand on some of the points raised by Saravolatz and Leggett [1] in their review of the newer fluoroquinolones in the 1 November issue. They noted the increased in vitro potency of these agents against Streptococcus pneumoniae; however, the major difference between drugs of this class is their intrinsic activity. Moreover, as recognized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in their approval statement for gemifloxacin in April 2003, gemifloxacin is the only agent that displays activity against both fluoroquinolone target sites at therapeutically achievable levels. Several studies have confirmed this activity against strains of S. pneumoniae that possess genes with fluoroquinolone-resistance mutations of gyrA, parC, or both [2, 3]. This property may be important, because, as the authors rightly note, there is a threat of increasing fluoroquinolone resistance even among community isolates of S. pneumoniae [4, 5]. Thus, in order to consistently provide the optimal conditions to eradicate or prevent the selection of resistant first-step mutants, it is necessary to use an agent that combines the best pharmacodynamic properties with the lowest MICs against these strains at each of the 2 targets.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".