Assessing cost effectiveness of empirical and prophylactic therapy for managing leptospirosis outbreaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the utility and cost effectiveness of empirical and prophylactic antibiotic treatment of leptospirosis compared with conventional management. We developed decision trees comparing empirical antibiotic treatment (within 4-7 days of symptom onset) or prophylaxis to conventional antibiotic treatment (initiated 7 days post-onset). Costs were calculated using both US and Barbados pricing. Empirical treatment provided slightly lower probability of survival, while prophylactic treatment resulted in slightly higher survival rates. Antibiotic treatment initiated after 4-7 symptomatic days was ineffective in preventing serious health outcomes, but cost less with the exception of azithromycin (US pricing). Empirical treatment in Barbados cost less than conventional treatment. Prophylaxis reduced rare serious health outcomes and resulted in significant cost savings for the United States and Barbados. Prophylactic therapy for high-risk individuals or prompt diagnosis and early treatment (before 4 days of symptoms) appear to be cost-effective approaches to prevent severe complications of leptospirosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".