Approach to management of suspected rabies exposures: what primary care physicians need to know.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the role of primary care physicians, in conjunction with local public health units, in the management of suspected rabies exposures and to outline the current guidelines for the administration of rabies postexposure prophylaxis. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Published guidelines on the topic of rabies were reviewed and additional articles were identified from key references. Various public health websites were also explored. Most evidence was level II or III. MAIN MESSAGE: Primary care physicians must always consider the risk of rabies when treating patients who have had animal-to-human exposures (eg, bite, scratch), and if indicated, postexposure prophylaxis must be administered as soon as possible because the infection is fatal once clinical symptoms develop. CONCLUSION: Human cases of rabies are almost entirely preventable if suspected exposures are identified and managed promptly and properly. Primary care physicians must continue to work together with local public health officials in order to minimize the threat of this deadly virus.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".