MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089899802 · doi:10.1097/mjt.0b013e3182459c28

IV Penicillin G Is as Effective as IV Cefuroxime in Treating Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Children

2012· article· en· W2089899802 on OpenAlexaff
Gil Amarilyo, Miguel Glatstein, Arik Alper, Dennis Scolnik, Moran Lavie, Nira Schneebaum, Galia Grisaru‐Soen, Ayala Assia, Liat Ben‐Sira, Shimon Reif

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Therapeutics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCefuroximeMedicinePenicillinPneumoniaAntibioticsCommunity-acquired pneumoniaInternal medicineBroad spectrumPediatricsMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overuse of broad-spectrum antimicrobials has resulted in bacterial resistance and increasing use of relatively expensive antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We hypothesized that CAP requiring parenteral medication is still curable with narrow-spectrum and inexpensive penicillin G. A prospective, randomized study was performed on 58 children aged 3 months to 15 years with CAP. Children were randomly assigned to receive low-dose penicillin G, high penicillin G, or cefuroxime intravenously for 4-7 days. The course of illness was monitored clinically and with predetermined laboratory and radiological indices for 30 days. The children recovered at the same rate with no significant differences in time to defervescence or duration of hospitalization. Observed differences in leukocyte counts and C-reactive protein at discharge were of questionable clinical significance. Penicillin G is as effective and safe as cefuroxime for CAP in otherwise healthy children, even in moderate doses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TherapeuticsSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207