Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document the range of presentations, extent of investigations, and treatment choices of 'physicians treating' neonates with mastitis seen over a 9-year period at a tertiary care pediatric hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An email survey was sent to Emergency Department (ED) staff and fellows asking them how they would treat a well-looking neonate with localized mastitis. Secondly, a retrospective chart review of neonates presenting to the ED with a diagnosis of neonatal mastitis or breast engorgement from July 2000 to December 2009 was conducted to assess how such patients were actually treated. RESULTS: 46/107 surveys were returned, with a wide discrepancy in how clinicians would treat neonatal mastitis: 4.3% would perform a full sepsis work up, including lumbar puncture, followed by IV antibiotics and hospital admission; 28% chose discharge on oral antibiotics; and 28% suggested admission only if blood work was abnormal. From the chart review, 33 neonates were diagnosed with possible neonatal mastitis over a 9-year period: 12 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 8 (66%) were admitted and treated with intravenous antibiotics, 2 (16.6%) were treated with oral antibiotics, and 2 (16.6%) did not receive antibiotics. None of the 12 patients had lumbar puncture performed. CONCLUSION: There is significant disagreement among clinicians regarding the best way to treat the well-looking neonate with localized mastitis. Most elect to perform blood tests and start treatment with IV antibiotics with good Staphylococcus aureus coverage, followed by oral antibiotics if cultures are negative.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".