Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human rabies is virtually always fatal despite numerous attempts at aggressive therapy. Most survivors received one or more doses of rabies vaccine prior to the onset of the disease. The Milwaukee Protocol has proved to be ineffective for rabies and should no longer be used. New approaches are needed and an improved understanding of basic mechanisms responsible for the clinical disease in rabies may prove to be useful for the development of novel therapeutic approaches. Antiviral therapy is thought to be an important component of combination therapy for the management of human rabies, and immunotherapy and neuroprotective therapy should also be strongly considered. There are many important issues for consideration regarding drug delivery to the central nervous system in rabies, which are in part related to the presence of the blood-brain barrier and also the blood-spinal cord barrier. Ribavirin and interferon-α have proved to be disappointing agents for the therapy of rabies. There is insufficient evidence to support the continued use of ketamine or amantadine for the therapy of rabies. Minocycline or corticosteroids should not be used because of concerns about aggravating the disease. A variety of new antiviral agents are under development and evaluation, including favipiravir, RNA interference (for example, small interfering [si]RNAs) and novel targeted approaches, including interference with viral capsid assembly and viral egress.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".