Evaluating Possible Pharmacokinetic Interactions between Tobramycin, Piperacillin, and a Combination of Piperacillin and Tazobactam in Patients with Various Degrees of Renal Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was performed to further investigate the apparent instability of tobramycin when coadministered with piperacillin/tazobactam in subjects with renal impairment. Twenty-six otherwise healthy volunteers between 23 and 74 years of age were studied. Eight subjects had moderate renal impairment, 10 had mild renal impairment, and 8 had normal renal function. Each subject received single doses of piperacillin/tazobactam and tobramycin alone as well as combined doses in a randomized, three-way crossover design. The subjects with normal renal function also received combined doses of piperacillin and tobramycin. Considerable care was taken to protect against in vitro inactivation of plasma and urine samples after collection. No systematic changes in pharmacokinetic parameters were observed. It is concluded that piperacillin, either alone or with tazobactam, did not change the pharmacokinetics of tobramycin in subjects with renal impairment. The apparent in vivo inactivation of tobramycin in the presence of piperacillin or piperacillin/tazobactam reported by others may be an artifact of ex vivo inactivation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".