{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031806615776081425, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021628498727735368, 'mean_word_length': 5.246031746031746, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In-vitro studies with ceftazidime.

MIC determinations for 275 multiply-resistant nosocomial isolates of enterobacteria showed that ceftazidime was more effective than cefotaxime, cefoxitin or cephalothin. Enterobacter species were the most resistant with 12% isolates resistant to more than 8 mg/l of ceftazidime, but this was still the most active agent. Of 150 isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (55% of which were resistant to gentamicin), only 9% were resistant to 8 mg/l of ceftazidime and 2% to cefsulodin, both of which were more active than cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, cefoperazone or moxalactam. Ceftazidime was less active than cefoxitin against Bacteroides fragilis, with 30% of strains resistant to 8 mg/l of ceftazidime, but it was more active than cefotaxime or cephalothin.