Parenteral artesunate reduced inhospital mortality more than quinine in severe falciparum malaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dondorp A, Nosten F, Stepniewska K, et al. Artesunate versus quinine for treatment of severe falciparum malaria: a randomised trial. Lancet 2005;366:717–25. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What is the relative effectiveness of parenteral artesunate and parenteral quinine for patients with severe falciparum malaria? Clinical impact ratings Infectious disease ★★★★★★☆ Tropical & travel medicine ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][5] Design: randomised controlled trial (South East Asian Quinine Artesunate Malaria Trial [SEAQUAMAT]). ### ![Graphic][6] Allocation: concealed.* ### ![Graphic][7] Blinding: blinded (microscopists assessing parasite counts and stages and data analysts).* ### ![Graphic][8] Follow up period: to discharge. ### ![Graphic][9] Setting: 10 centres in Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma), India, and Indonesia. ### ![Graphic][10] Patients: 1461 patients >2 years of age (mean age 28 y, 74% men) who had a diagnosis of severe malaria and a positive blood antigen stick test for Plasmodium falciparum histidine rich protein 2. Exclusion criteria: history of full treatment with quinine or an artemisinin derivative for >24 hours before admission or known allergy to artemisinin derivatives or quinine. ### ![Graphic][11] Intervention: 730 patients were allocated … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253DDondorp%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%26rft.volume%253D366%26rft.issue%253D9487%26rft.spage%253D717%26rft.epage%253D725%26rft.atitle%253DArtesunate%2Bversus%2Bquinine%2Bfor%2Btreatment%2Bof%2Bsevere%2Bfalciparum%2Bmalaria%253A%2Ba%2Brandomised%2Btrial.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252805%252967176-0%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16125588%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/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67176-0&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16125588&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F2%2F52.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000231474600027&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | medium |
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".