Antimicrobial Safety and Tolerability: Differences and Dilemmas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adverse drug reactions associated with antimicrobials have become a topic of major importance and concern in the last few years. Antimicrobial toxicity may take many forms, varying from mild, transient phenomena to dramatic, life-threatening events such as seizures or cardiac arrhythmias. We review the toxicity of antimicrobials in general and of the fluoroquinolones in particular and attempt to explain the adverse events by use of structure-adverse event relationships where possible. There are currently 5 main mechanisms that can be invoked to explain antimicrobial toxicity: direct effects, hypersensitivity, changes in microbial flora, drug interactions, and microbial lysis. The adverse drug reactions seen with fluoroquinolones are explained on the basis of these 5 mechanisms. The various organ systems affected by the fluoroquinolones are considered; then individual members of the fluoroquinolone class are reviewed. The unexpected and dramatic problems encountered with temafloxacin and trovafloxacin are discussed as well.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".