AMMI Canada–CACMID 2007 Annual Conference March 14 to 18, 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Enterobacteriaceae may be a cause of cSSSI in patients with underlying comorbid illnesses such as diabetes mellitus, and require empiric therapy with broad spectrum antibacterials.We used pooled data from 2 cSSSI trials to compare the clinical and microbiological efficacy of sequential IV/PO moxifloxacin (MXF) with comparator (COMP) therapy in patients with cSSSI due to Enterobacteriaceae.METHODS: Data were pooled from 2 sequential (IV/PO) trials of MXF in the treatment of cSSSI in hospitalized patients.COMP treatment consisted of IV piperacillin-tazobactam followed by PO amoxicillin/clavulanate (North America) and sequential IV/PO amoxicillin/clavulanate (Europe).RESULTS: The 2 trials enrolled 1421 patients (712 MXF, 709 COMP) of which 999 were valid for the per protocol analysis (495 MXF, 504 COMP).Of these patients, 286 (57.8%)MXF and 291 (57.7%)COMP-treated subjects were also microbiologically valid.Of these, 87 (30.4%)MXF and 77 (26.5%)COMP-treated subjects had Enterobacteriaceae isolated from their skin infection sites.The table shows the isolated organisms, and the overall clinical and bacteriological success rates at test-of-cure (10-42 days and 14-28 days post treatment for the North American and European trials respectively) among patients valid for the per protocol analysis with a positive skin culture for Enterobacteriaceae.Parameter MXF COMP Enterobacteriaceae (# isolates) 87 77 E coli 38 33 Klebsiella spp 14 10 Proteus spp 14 16 Morganella spp 1 3 Providencia spp 2 2 Serratia marcescens 4 2 Enterobacter spp 14 11 Clinical success (# isolates) 74.7% (65/87) 72.7% (56/77) Bateriological success (# isolates) 73.6% (64/87) 72.7% (56/77)CONCLUSIONS: Enterobacteriaceae were cultured frequently from hospitalised patients with cSSSI.Monotherapy therapy with IV/PO MXF had similar clinical and bacteriological efficacy as the standard treatment regimens in the management of cSSSI due to Enterobacteriaceae.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.293 | 0.063 |
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".