Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of pivmecillinam for empirical treatment of acute uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) was initially reported in clinical trials published in the 1970s and 1980s. Bacteriological cure rates observed in these trials were consistently >85%, and studies of different dosing regimens suggested that a 3 day course was appropriate. Comparative studies reported that pivmecillinam was equivalent to other antimicrobial agents in terms of clinical and bacteriological outcomes. These studies also documented that pivmecillinam was effective for treatment of Staphylococcus saprophyticus infections, was acceptable for use in pregnancy and was well tolerated. Subsequent widespread use of pivmecillinam in Scandinavian countries has led to a body of clinical experience which confirms the efficacy and safety of this antimicrobial agent in the treatment of acute cystitis. Recently, two large, prospective, randomized, double-blind, multi-centre clinical trials have been completed to assist in defining the role of this antimicrobial agent in the treatment of acute cystitis. A comparison of 3 day courses of pivmecillinam or norfloxacin, both at 400 mg bd, showed higher bacteriological cure rates with norfloxacin but generally similar clinical outcomes. A second, dose-ranging study found that pivmecillinam, given bd for 7 days, led to superior bacteriological and clinical outcomes at short-term follow-up than the 3 day regimen. Pooling bacteriological outcomes from the two studies showed similar outcomes with 7 days of pivmecillinam 200 mg bd or 3 days of norfloxacin 400 mg bd. The shorter, 3 day, course achieved similar short-term clinical outcomes to 7 days of pivmecillinam and 3 days of norfloxacin in women aged </=50 years. These recent studies confirm earlier reports and clinical experience that pivmecillinam is effective and well tolerated for the treatment of acute cystitis in women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".