Effect of Chronic Probenecid Therapy on Cefazolin Serum Concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess the effectiveness of probenecid at maintaining therapeutic serum concentrations of cefazolin at steady-state by comparing cefazolin serum concentrations produced by intravenous cefazolin 2000 mg every 8 hours with concentrations produced by once-daily administration of intravenous cefazolin 2000 mg plus oral probenecid 500 mg 4 times daily. METHODS: Patients in this prospective, nonrandomized, unblinded study were identified after an order was written for intravenous cefazolin 2000 mg every 8 hours or once daily plus oral probenecid 500 mg 4 times daily in the emergency department. For both study arms, a peak cefazolin serum concentration was obtained 1 hour after the infusion was started and 23 hours later, prior to the next scheduled dose. Doses of cefazolin for days 2-4 were then administered as ordered. On day 5, peak and trough serum concentrations were drawn 1 hour after the infusion started and 23 hours later, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients were prospectively assessed from April 2000 to October 2001. In patients who received cefazolin once daily, the average serum peak and trough concentrations on day 1 were 146.53 and 2.02 mg/L, respectively. Peak and trough concentrations on day 5 were 148.30 and 2.67 mg/L, respectively. In patients who received cefazolin every 8 hours, peak and trough concentrations were 122.15 and 18.65 mg/L on day 1 and, on day 5, 136.51 and 16.98 mg/L, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Probenecid 500 mg given orally 4 times daily was effective in maintaining therapeutic serum concentrations of cefazolin at steady-state when given with intravenous cefazolin 2000 mg once daily.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".