Chest radiograph in acute respiratory infections
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chest radiography is widely used during the management of acute lower respiratory infections, but the benefits are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of chest radiography on clinical outcome in acute lower respiratory infections. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2007) and EMBASE (January 1976 to February 2007). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of chest radiography in acute respiratory infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two trials. One, of 522 outpatient children (and performed by the review authors), found that 46% of both radiography and control participants had recovered by seven days (relative risk (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.31). Thirty-three per cent of radiography participants and 32% of control participants made a subsequent hospital visit within four weeks (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30) and 3% of both radiography and control participants were subsequently admitted to hospital within four weeks (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.52). The other trial involving 1502 adults attending an emergency department found no significant difference in length of illness, the single outcome prespecified for this review (mean of 16.9 days in radiograph group versus 17.0 days in control group, P > 0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that chest radiography improves outcome in outpatients with acute lower respiratory infection. The findings do not exclude a potential effect of radiography, but the potential benefit needs to be balanced against the hazards and expense of chest radiography. The findings apply to outpatients only.
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".