Cutaneous Adverse Reactions to Fluoroquinolones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, even though there are some large studies on adverse reactions related to fluoroquinolones, there is no comprehensive study focusing on cutaneous adverse drug reactions associated with their use. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the pattern of cutaneous reaction related to the administration of each type of fluoroquinolone and to study the cross-sensitivity between various types of fluoroquinolones. METHODS: Voluntary reports of any adverse events associated with fluoroquinolone use as reported from January 2004 to December 2008 and obtained from the Adverse Drug Reaction Center, Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, were reviewed. RESULTS: Among 166,736 patients who had been treated with fluoroquinolones, the prevalences of adverse reaction and cutaneous adverse reaction were 0.13% and 0.09%, respectively. The prevalence of cutaneous reaction to individual fluoroquinolones varies between 0.04% and 0.37%. One hundred fifty-one subjects were enrolled. Most cutaneous reactions were attributed to ciprofloxacin (n = 93), and the most frequent adverse cutaneous reaction seen was maculopapular rash (39.7%). Thirteen cases (8.6%) involved a previous history of fluoroquinolone hypersensitivity; among these, 15.4% had cross-reactivity potential. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that individual fluoroquinolones are responsible for different types and frequencies of cutaneous reactions, with some potentiality of cross-reactivity between different generations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.004 |
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 teacher head, 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".