Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir, Recently Legg & Bint1 asked, “Whether the quinolones would be put in their place by the pneumococcus?” Since this article, two new fluoroquinolones have been released in the USA, with another under review. We examined >1000 recent clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae for their susceptibility to two of these fluoroquinolones, moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin. Using the microbroth dilution method,2 we tested 1037 strains isolated from sputum, CSF and blood. The Table shows the MIC90s of the two drugs: gatifloxacin 0.5 mg/L and moxifloxacin 0.25 mg/L. These data corroborate those of studies in which the agents were tested separately against S. pneumoniae. Furthermore, other data indicate that moxifloxacin is at least 2- to 4-fold more potent than other fluoroquinolones in vitro when assessed by the mutation prevention concentration (MPC) method3 and pharmacodynamic data suggest that moxifloxacin should not only be clinically effective but also maintain low levels of resistance, unlike levofloxacin which from in vitro, MPC and PK/PD analyses is predicted to compromise long-term susceptibility of S. pneumoniae if used at once-daily dosing. Quinolones with borderline (near breakpoint) activity against the pneumococcus clearly need to be used at higher doses (where possible) and/or with more frequent dosing in order to minimize the selection of resistance. We need to insist on this strategy now.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.013 |
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".