Effects of Comparative Killing by Pradofloxacin and Seven Other Antimicrobials Against Varying Bacterial Densities of Swine Isolates of Pasteurella multocida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacterial killing is important for recovering from infection. Pasteurella multocida is a key bacterial pathogen causing swine respiratory disease and is associated with substantial mortality. Antimicrobial therapy remains an important therapeutic intervention for treating infected animals. Pradofloxacin (fluoroquinolone) is the most recently approved antimicrobial agent for treating pigs with swine respiratory disease. We compared in vitro killing of swine P. multocida strains by pradofloxacin in comparison to ceftiofur, enrofloxacin, florfenicol, marbofloxacin, tildipirosin, tilmicosin, and tulathromycin over a range of bacterial densities and four clinically relevant drug concentrations. Pradofloxacin killed 92–96.9% of cells across 106–108 cfu/mL densities at the mutant prevention drug concentration following 2–24 h of drug exposure, 96.9–98.9% of cells across 106–109 cfu/mL at the maximum serum drug concentration following 30 min of drug exposure, increasing to 99.9–100% kill following 12–24 h of drug exposure. At the maximum tissue drug concentration and against bacterial densities of 106–109 cfu/mL, pradofloxacin killed 91.3–99.8% of cells following 2 h of drug exposure, which increased to 99.9–100% kill following 12–24 h of drug exposure. Pradofloxacin was rapidly bactericidal across a range of bacterial densities and at clinically relevant drug concentrations. Pradofloxacin will be an important antibiotic for treating pigs with swine respiratory disease and where clinically indicated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".