Efficacies of Topical Formulations of Foscarnet and Acyclovir and of 5-Percent Acyclovir Ointment (Zovirax) in a Murine Model of Cutaneous Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topical efficacies of foscarnet and acyclovir incorporated into a polyoxypropylene-polyoxyethylene polymer were evaluated and compared to that of 5% acyclovir ointment (Zovirax) by use of a murine model of cutaneous herpes simplex virus type 1 infection. All three treatments given three times daily for 4 days and initiated 24 h after infection prevented the development of the zosteriform rash in mice. The acyclovir formulation and the acyclovir ointment reduced the virus titers below detectable levels in skin samples from the majority of mice, whereas the foscarnet formulation has less of an antiviral effect. Reducing the number of treatments to a single application given 24 h postinfection resulted in a significantly higher efficacy of the formulation of acyclovir than of the acyclovir ointment. Acyclovir incorporated within the polymer was also significantly more effective than the acyclovir ointment when treatment was initiated on day 5 postinfection. The higher efficacy of the acyclovir formulation than of the acyclovir ointment is attributed to the semiviscous character of the polymer, which allows better penetration of the drug into the skin.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".