Effects of fluoroquinolone on mitral and aortic regurgitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of fluoroquinolones on mitral and aortic regurgitation. Seven electronic databases were searched for relevant research data published in English and Thai between the database’s inception and September 30, 2022, including additional records from Silpakorn University and Chulalongkorn University’s online theses databases. This systematic review included studies that compared the effects of fluoroquinolones and other antibiotic classes on the occurrence of mitral and aortic valve regurgitation. Subsequently, the quality of the research was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Of the 2,891 articles identified, two eligible studies were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis examined different exposure periods and discovered that individuals who received fluoroquinolones within 30 days and within one year had a similar risk of developing mitral and aortic valve regurgitation compared to those who received other groups of antibiotics. Specifically, the risk of mitral and aortic regurgitation associated with fluoroquinolones was comparable to that of amoxicillin and macrolides. Overall, the meta-analysis found no association between fluoroquinolone use and the development of mitral and aortic regurgitation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".