Practical Aspects of Choosing an Antibiotic for Patients with a Reported Allergy to an Antibiotic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physicians often must select antibiotics for patients who are reported to have an antibiotic allergy. For penicillins, the sensitivity of penicillin skin testing for predicting serious allergic reactions is excellent. For other beta-lactam antibiotics, penicillin skin testing is useful for excluding the possibility of sensitivity to the beta-lactam ring. For other antibiotics, the patient history remains the most useful tool for determining whether a serious reaction is likely to occur with further drug exposure. The cross-reactivity between penicillins and second- or third-generation cephalosporins (excluding cefamandole) is probably no higher than is the cross-reactivity between penicillins and other classes of antibiotics. When a patient has a suspected immunoglobulin E-mediated antibiotic allergy, desensitization therapy should be considered, if the efficacy of alternate antibiotics is in doubt. For the treatment of serious infections, it is usually possible to safely administer the antibiotic of choice despite a history of possible antibiotic allergy.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".