Antibiotic choices by paediatric residents and recently graduated paediatricians for typical infectious disease problems in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate antibiotic choices and recommendations for duration of therapy made by paediatric residents (PRs) and recently graduated paediatricians (RGPs) in several typical infectious disease conditions. METHODS: In autumn 2002, a two-page questionnaire was sent to 276 core PRs in Canadian residency programs and to a random selection of 276 RGPs from across Canada. The questionnaire described 10 scenarios: otitis media, pharyngitis, sinusitis, bronchopneumonia, lobar pneumonia, meningitis, pyelonephritis, osteomyelitis, cellulitis, and fever and neutropenia. The participants were asked primarily about initial antibiotic selection and duration of treatment for each scenario. RESULTS: There were 251 participants (overall response rate of 45%). The two most common antibiotic recommendations constituted 85% or more of the total for all scenarios except acute otitis media, sinusitis, cellulitis, and fever and neutropenia. There was a twofold or more difference in the range of recommended duration of treatment for all scenarios and a threefold or more difference for sinusitis, meningitis and osteomyelitis. PRs were more likely than RGPs to use broader spectrum cephalosporins for pneumococcal pneumonia (33% versus 15%, respectively; P=0.001) and to treat sinusitis for just five to 10 days (39% versus 22%, respectively; P=0.01). Also, 33% of all participants recommended amoxicillin/clavulanate or a cephalosporin rather than amoxicillin for sinusitis. CONCLUSION: PRs and RGPs made similar and reasonable recommendations, largely in line with published guidelines, for most of the infectious disease scenarios presented. For some conditions, a significant minority of respondents unnecessarily recommended broad-spectrum antibiotics. The most variable responses were for duration of treatment, reflecting the lack of certainty in the published evidence base for many conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".