Community-acquired pneumonia and tuberculosis: differential diagnosis and the use of fluoroquinolones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The respiratory fluoroquinolones moxifloxacin, gemifloxacin, and high-dose levofloxacin are recommended in guidelines for effective empirical antimicrobial therapy of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The use of these antibiotics for this indication in areas with a high prevalence of tuberculosis (TB) has been questioned due to the perception that they contribute both to delays in the diagnosis of pulmonary TB and to the emergence of fluoroquinolone-resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. In this review, we consider some of the important questions regarding the potential use of fluoroquinolones for the treatment of CAP where the burden of TB is high. The evidence suggests that the use of fluoroquinolones as recommended for 5-10 days as empirical treatment for CAP, according to current clinical management guidelines, is appropriate even in TB-endemic regions. It is critical to quickly exclude M. tuberculosis as a cause of CAP using the most rapid relevant diagnostic investigations in the management of all patients with CAP.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".