A survey of physician's attitudes regarding management of severe group A streptococcal infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) use in the management of streptococcal toxic shock syndrome remains highly controversial. To evaluate the current management of severe group A streptococcal infections and the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing immunoglobulins versus placebo for streptococcal toxic shock syndrome and/or necrotizing fasciitis, a 32-question mail and web-based survey of Canadian infectious disease specialists was conducted between December 2003 and February 2004. Overall, 172 respondents (90.5%) recommended immunoglobulins as adjunctive treatment of streptococcal toxic shock compared to 67 (35.3%) for fasciitis without toxic shock and 93 (48.9%) for invasive group A streptococcal infections with hypotension. A considerable proportion of respondents agreed that a randomized clinical trial in streptococcal toxic shock (70.1%, 131/187) and necrotizing fasciitis without toxic shock (88.2%, 162/186) would be ethical. From these, a great majority would be willing to enroll patients in a trial comparing IVIG to placebo for streptococcal toxic shock (125/131, 95.4%) and necrotizing fasciitis without shock (152/162, 93.8%). These initial results clearly demonstrate ambivalence in the utilization of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) in invasive group A streptococcal infections in Canada and emphasize the need for further clinical data on immunoglobulin use in streptococcal toxic shock syndrome. They also demonstrate that, although the majority of physicians recommend immunoglobulins, there is important variability between physician recommendations with regard to the indications of use, dose, and time of administration.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".