An Assessment of Linezolid Utilization in Selected Canadian Provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Linezolid is approved for the treatment of designated infections caused by methicillin-resistant and -susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. OBJECTIVE: To characterize linezolid utilization since its launch in Canada in 2001. METHODS: Demographics, antimicrobial regimens, and clinical and resource utilization data for linezolid-treated patients were collected retrospectively by hospital pharmacists at nine tertiary care hospitals in four provinces. Statistics describing linezolid utilization were calculated and the appropriateness of use was assessed according to a treatment algorithm based on recommendations of the Infectious Diseases Pharmacy Specialty Network in 2001. RESULTS: Ninety-nine linezolid courses were prescribed for 103 infections in 95 patients (mean age 57.8 years, 52.6% male) with an average length of hospital stay of 40.6 days. Fifty-three per cent of patients had an allergy to at least one antibiotic other than linezolid. The major use of linezolid was for treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (32.0%), followed by bacteremia (15.5%). The most prevalent pathogen was methicillin-resistant S aureus, identified in 44.7% of infections. Linezolid was primarily prescribed as the oral form following other intravenous anti-infectives (55.6% of courses) for an average duration of 14.4 days. The rate of appropriate utilization was 53% (range 25% to 75% by site). In 93.5% of courses deemed inappropriate, recommended first-line therapies were not attempted before linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid was prescribed appropriately in approximately one-half of cases reviewed. The rate of appropriate utilization is similar to those rates reported in other Canadian antibiotic reviews.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".