Infezioni in Medicina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Although fosfomycin is currently approved for treating urinary tract infections, it is increasingly being used as salvage therapy for various infectious syndromes outside the urinary tract. This systematic review evaluates clinical and microbiological cure rates in patients with bacterial infections not restricted to the urinary tract where fosfomycin was used off-label. Materials and Methods: Articles from two databases (Pubmed and Scopus) were reviewed. The dosage, route, and duration of fosfomycin therapy along with the details of adjunctive antimicrobial agents were noted. The final outcomes captured were clinical or microbiological cures. Results: spp and Enterobacteriaceae were the most common organisms. The pooled clinical and microbiological cure rates were 75% and 84%, respectively. Conclusion: Fosfomycin has moderate clinical success in patients with non-urinary tract infections, especially when used with other antimicrobials. Due to the paucity of randomized controlled trials, fosfomycin's use should be limited to situations where no alternatives are supported by better clinical evidence.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".