Delays in Initiation of Acyclovir Therapy in Herpes Simplex Encephalitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of herpes simplex encephalitis (HSE) is based on clinical findings, MRI, and detection of herpes simplex virus (HSV) DNA in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) using polymerase chain reaction amplification. Delays in starting treatment are associated with poorer clinical outcomes. We assessed the timing of initiation of acyclovir therapy in HSE. METHODS: Inpatient databases from seven hospitals in Winnipeg, Manitoba were used to identify individuals diagnosed with encephalitis and HSE from 2004 to 2009. The time taken to initiate therapy with acyclovir and the reasons for delays were determined. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were identified; 69 (90%) received acyclovir; in the others a non-HSV infection was strongly suspected. Thirteen patients were subsequently confirmed to have HSE. Acyclovir was initiated a median of 21 hours (3-407) after presentation in encephalitis cases, and a median of 11 hours (3-118) in HSE. The most common reason for delay was a failure to consider HSE in the differential diagnosis, despite suggestive clinical features. Where therapy was delayed in HSE patients, the decision to begin acyclovir was prompted by transfer of the patient to a different service (55%), recommendations by consultants (18%), imaging results (18%), and CSF pleocytosis (9%). CONCLUSIONS: Delays in initiating acyclovir for HSE are common, and are most often due to a failure to consider HSE in a timely fashion on presentation. In order to improve patient outcomes, physicians should be more vigilant for HSE, and begin acyclovir therapy expeditiously on the basis of clinical suspicion rather than waiting for confirmatory tests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".