In patients with β-lactam allergies, administration of non–β-lactam surgical prophylaxis is associated with increased risk of infection. Although many patients self-report β-lactam allergies, most are unconfirmed or mislabeled. A quality improvement process, utilizing a structured β-lactam allergy tool, was implemented to improve the utilization of preferred β-lactam surgical prophylaxis.

Justin Stover has recently edited a collection of Platonic placita, organized by individual dialogue, which he identifies as the lost third book of Apuleius’ De Platone. The work is preserved only in a thirteenth-century manuscript, Vatican BAV Reg. lat. 1572 (= R). The manuscript is filled with trivial errors, including a large number of one-word or two-word lacunae. Stover has worked ably to clean up the text and many of his emendations are uncontroversial. But any editio princeps is likely to be susceptible of improvement. I offer here some notes on a few points where I think either the text or Stover's translation and commentary can be bettered. I am not primarily concerned here with the ascription to Apuleius (if the work is not by Apuleius, it must in any case be by a Middle Platonist roughly contemporary with him), although one or two points may have some relevance to this question.

This article revisits a set of sixteen hexameters by Guarino on the accession of Leonello d'Este in 1442. The poem was first published by Ian Thomson, whose text can be improved in several minor points as well as one major one. Thomson had already realized that Guarino's lines are not transmitted in their original order and had proposed to move lines 4–6 to follow line 11. The displacement is in fact even more extensive than he realized but has a simple mechanical explanation and a simple solution. Once the lines are properly distributed, the piece emerges as a dialogue between an unnamed speaker and the city of Ferrara, perhaps intended to accompany a visual representation of some sort. Thomson's theory that Guarino ghost-wrote the poem for an unnamed presbyter to present to Leonello is shown to be problematic.

Huemer's text:

The confusion of the MSS is well justified; something has gone very wrong here. Even if ‘horrendis... profundis’ could be plausibly construed, the repetition ‘horrendis... horrendi’ is impossibly clumsy, and it seems obvious that one or the other does not belong here. I suggest that the interloper is the ‘horrendis’ of line 286, which probably derives from a simple eye-skip to ‘;horrendi.sociis’ below. The likely corollary is that the correct reading at the end of the line is ‘profundi’, later altered in an attempt to accommodate the intrusive ‘horrendis’. This approach would seem to be confirmed by the frequency of the clausula ‘stagna profundi’ in the Latin hexameter (cf. Lucan 2.571, 8.853, 9.305, Sil. 7.282, 378, 10.590, Avien. Arat. 991, Claud. 8.596, Coripp. Ioh. 6.23).