Evaluation of current dosing guidance for oral rifampicin treatment in adult patients with osteoarticular infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For management of osteoarticular infections, rifampicin appears to be the key antibiotic. We aimed to evaluate the actual rifampicin dosing regimens using a population pharmacokinetic model of rifampicin in patients with osteoarticular infections. A Monte Carlo simulation study was performed to simulate steady-state plasma concentrations for 1000 randomly sampled subjects using a total daily dose between 600 and 1200 mg (600 and 900 mg once daily, 450 and 600 mg twice daily, or 300 mg 3 times daily). When rifampicin was administered with fusidic acid, the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target (area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration ≥952) was achieved with all tested dosing regimen, except 600 mg once daily for Staphylococcus epidermidis infections. Without coadministration of fusidic acid, none of tested dosing regimens achieved this PK/PD target. Most recommended drug-dosing regimens allow attaining the fixed area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration target for Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococcal osteoarticular infections. In future studies, PK/PD target for osteoarticular infections in human should also be confirmed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".