Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial On Teicoplanin Versus Vancomycin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To Evaluate the efficacy and safety of teicoplanin. METHODS: The patients received teicoplanin intravenously once daily at 400mg in the first day, 200mg from the second day and the doses were double for the patients with severe infections, or vancomycin at 0.5g three times daily and 1.0g twice daily for the patients with severe infections. The treatment duration was 7-14 days. RESULTS: The effective rate and cure rate were 87.10% (54/62) and 74.19%(46/62)in teicoplanin group, while in vancomycin group were 90.32%(56/62)and 61.29%(38/62) respectively. The bacterial elimination rate was 94.74%(54/57) in teicoplanin group and 88.52%(54/61) in vancomycin group. Adverse reactions occurred in 11.29%(7/62) of patients in teicoplanin group and 6.45%(4/62) in vancomycin group. There were no statistically differences between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Teicoplanin is an effective and safe agent for treating moderate and severe gram positive bacterial infections.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".