Is In Vitro Antibiotic Combination More Effective than Single-Drug Therapy against Anthrax?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antibiotic combinations are used to enhance antibacterial efficacy and to prevent the development of resistance. We have tested a possible synergistic effect of several antibacterial combinations on Bacillus anthracis. The in vitro activities of antibiotic combinations against two strains of B. anthracis, strain Sterne and the Russian anthrax vaccine strain STi, were tested by the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) method, derived from the MICs of the agents in combination, and by measuring the rate of bacterial killing over time by several antibiotic combinations. The FIC results showed that synergism against both B. anthracis strains was observed only with the combination of rifampin and clindamycin. The telithromycin-amoxicillin combination showed synergism against strain Sterne only. All other combinations were either indifferent or antagonistic. The results of the bacterial time-kill study demonstrated indifferent effects for all combinations. These in vitro results demonstrate the difficulties in obtaining synergistic combinations of antibiotics against B. anthracis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".