Bibliographic record
Abstract
Das B, Sarkar C, Das D et al. Telavancin: a novel semisynthetic lipoglycopeptide agent to counter the challenge of resistant Gram-positive pathogens. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2017 Mar; 4(2): 49–73. DOI: 10.1177/2049936117690501 The authors wish to highlight the following corrections, which should have appeared in the original text: 1. Page 49, Abstract, lines 4–5: Telavancin is approved for hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) in the United States when alternative treatments are not available. In Russia and Canada, telavancin is approved for both complicated skin and skin-structure infections (cSSSI) and HABP/VABP. 2. Page 50, right panel, para 2, lines 15–18: Revised per telavancin label based on latest PI and EMA (also pasted below). In the United States, telavancin is approved in adults for the treatment of cSSSI due to susceptible Gram-positive pathogens. In addition, telavancin is approved for HABP/VABP when alternative treatments are not suitable. In Canada and Russia, telavancin is approved for Gram-positive pathogens for the treatment of patients with cSSSI and HABP/VABP. In the European Union, telavancin is approved for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia, known or believed to be caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) when other alternative medicines are unsuitable. 3. Page 51, right panel, para 1, lines 1–6: Per the latest (2016) telavancin PI, HABP/VABP indication for telavancin should be included. 4. Page 51, Figure 1 caption: The hydrophilic nature of telavancin contributes to its half-life. 5. Page 53, left panel, para “In vitro activity”, lines 5–8: As per the following (newer) article, which states that “Telavancin MIC is 16-32 fold lower than vancomycin against MRSA.” Mendes RE, Flamm RK, Farrell DJ, et al. Telavancin activity tested against Gram-positive clinical isolates from European, Russian and Israeli hospitals (2011–2013) using a revised broth microdilution testing method: redefining the baseline activity of telavancin. J Chemother 2015; 28: 83–88. DOI: 10.1179/1973947815Y.0000000050 6. Page 53, right panel, para 1, lines 11–16: Per the Mendes et al. (2015) article listed above, telavancin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) is 16- to 32-fold lower than vancomycin against MRSA. 7. Page 54, Table 1: These MIC values were estimated using old methods. Revise the MIC values based on the references for new MIC methods (see below). Farrell DJ, Mendes RE, Rhomberg PR, et al. Revised reference broth microdilution method for testing telavancin: effect on MIC results and correlation with other testing methodologies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58(9): 5547–5551. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.03172-14 8. Page 61, right panel, para “ATTAIN trials (ATTAIN 1 and 2)”, lines 9–12: The ATTAIN trials did not include patients with “healthcare-associated pneumonia,” therefore, any mention of this is not correct.
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 | 0.002 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.393 | 0.313 |
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".