Review: antiviral agents reduce the risk of influenza in healthy adults and alleviate symptoms faster than placebo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Rivetti D, et al . Antivirals for influenza in healthy adults: systematic review. Lancet 2006;367:303–13. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In healthy adults, do antiviral agents reduce the risk of influenza and improve outcomes in affected people? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care★★★★★☆☆ Public health ★★★★★★☆ Infectious disease ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][5] Data sources: Medline (August 2005), EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (June 2005), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (issue 3, 2005), and reference lists. ### ![Graphic][6] Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the prophylactic or treatment effects against influenza of amantadine, rimantadine, or neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir and zanamivir) with placebo, no treatment, or symptomatic treatment in otherwise healthy people 16–65 years of age. 53 RCTs met the selection criteria. ### ![Graphic][7] Outcomes: cases of symptomatic or asymptomatic influenza (confirmed by laboratory testing) and influenza-like illness (clinical criteria only), alleviation of symptoms and viral shedding or load in affected people, and adverse effects. In prophylaxis trials, … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253DJefferson%26rft.auinit1%253DT.%26rft.volume%253D367%26rft.issue%253D9507%26rft.spage%253D303%26rft.epage%253D313%26rft.atitle%253DAntivirals%2Bfor%2Binfluenza%2Bin%2Bhealthy%2Badults%253A%2Bsystematic%2Breview.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252806%252967970-1%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16443037%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(06)67970-1&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16443037&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F5%2F141.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000235084600026&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".