MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996549152 · doi:10.1136/ebm.11.1.17

The Bug Buster kit was better than single dose pediculicides for head lice

2006· letter· en· W1996549152 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Dawes

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatological diseases and infestations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHead (geology)Computer scienceToxicologyBiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hill N, Moor G, Cameron MM, et al. Single blind, randomised, comparative study of the Bug Buster kit and over the counter pediculicide treatments against head lice in the United Kingdom. BMJ 2005;331:384–7. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In children with head lice, is the Bug Buster kit more effective than over the counter pediculicides? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ Paediatrics ★★★★★☆☆ Public health ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: unconcealed.* ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: blinded (outcome assessors).* ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: 15 days for the Bug Buster kit and 5 days for pediculicides. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: general practices in 4 counties in England and 1 county in Scotland, UK. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: 133 children 2–15 years of age (1 child from each family) who had a live head louse, had received no treatment for head lice in the previous 3 weeks, and their parents or guardians agreed not to use other head lice treatments during the trial and agreed that the immediate family would be examined and treated if necessary with … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.38537.468623.E0%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16085658%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/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=331/7513/384&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F1%2F17.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreOther · Commentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicDermatological diseases and infestationsFrench-language works237,207