Preliminary Evaluation of a Sitafloxacin-Containing Regimen for Relapsed or Refractory Pulmonary Mycobacterium avium Complex Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although sitafloxacin (STFX) is known to have a favorable minimum inhibitory concentration for Mycobacterium avium, few studies have evaluated the clinical efficacy of an STFX-containing regimen for pulmonary M avium complex (MAC) disease. To evaluate the clinical efficacy of STFX-containing regimens for relapsed or refractory pulmonary MAC disease, we retrospectively reviewed 18 patients with pulmonary MAC disease who received STFX for at least 4 weeks for pulmonary MAC disease between January 2008 and February 2016. Of 18 patients, 10 (55.6%) showed improved radiological characteristics and 8 (44.4%) showed negative sputum cultures at 6 months. Regarding the clinical symptoms, improvements were observed in decreasing order in sputum production (77.8%), cough (72.2%), and malaise (55.6%). Common adverse events included nausea or vomiting (38.9%), followed by loose stool or diarrhea (27.8%) and sleepiness (11.1%). Although this study contained a small number of subjects, we describe a STFX-containing regimen that was effective in achieving sputum culture negative conversions and had an acceptable adverse events profile.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".