Postexposure prophylaxis with inhaled zanamivir was efficacious for household contacts of people with influenza
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(2000) N Engl J Med 343, 1282. Hayden FG, Gubareva LV, Monto AS et al . ., for the Zanamivir Family Study Group. . Inhaled zanamivir for the prevention of influenza in families. . Nov 2; . : . –3. . [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In household contacts of people with influenza, what is the efficacy of postexposure prophylaxis with inhaled zanamivir? Randomised {allocation concealed*}†, blinded {patients, clinicians, outcome assessors, and statisticians}†,* controlled trial with follow up to 28 days. 15 centres in the US, Canada, the UK, and Finland. 337 families with 2–5 members, including ≥1 adult and ≥1 child who was 5–17 years of age. Family members who were hypersensitive to zanamivir, immunocompromised, pregnant, breast feeding, or using an anti-influenza agent were not assigned to a study drug. All families were included in the intention to treat analysis, and 1147 of 1158 (99%) participants completed the study. Within 36 hours after 1 family member contracted an influenza-like illness (index case), eligible family members began to take the study drug. Influenza-like illness was defined as ≥2 of temperature ≥37.8° C, feverishness, cough, headache, sore throat, and myalgia. The 321 index case patients (mean age 19 y, 58% women) were allocated to inhaled zanamivir (n=163), 10 mg, or placebo … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.issn%253D0028-4793%26rft.aulast%253DHayden%26rft.auinit1%253DF.%2BG.%26rft.volume%253D343%26rft.issue%253D18%26rft.spage%253D1282%26rft.epage%253D1289%26rft.atitle%253DInhaled%2BZanamivir%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BPrevention%2Bof%2BInfluenza%2Bin%2BFamilies%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJM200011023431801%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11058672%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=10.1056/NEJM200011023431801&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11058672&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F6%2F5%2F140.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000090131600001&link_type=ISI
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: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
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 | 0.001 |
| 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, 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".