Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence evaluating the efficacy and safety of antiviral agents to reduce morbidity associated with Bell's palsy. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched (all up to April 2006) for English-language, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials that evaluated the use of antiviral agents in Bell's palsy. Search terms included Bell's palsy, acyclovir, valacyclovir, famciclovir, and randomized controlled trials. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Prospective, randomized, controlled trials that evaluated efficacy and safety endpoints of antiviral agents in the treatment of Bell's palsy were included. Primary efficacy outcomes included facial paralysis recovery profile, facial paralysis recovery index, and the House-Brackmann facial nerve grading scale. Safety outcomes were also identified by each trial. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two prospective, randomized clinical trials were included in this review, both involving the use of acyclovir for treatment of Bell's palsy. Acyclovir monotherapy was shown to be inferior to prednisone monotherapy; however, the combination of acyclovir and prednisone was found to be superior to prednisone alone. There are limited data describing the safety of acyclovir in Bell's palsy. CONCLUSIONS: The use of acyclovir in the treatment of Bell's palsy remains controversial. Additional, adequately powered, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are needed to definitively support its use. For the time being, the evidence reviewed in this article would favor the combination of acyclovir and prednisone if commenced within the first 72 hours of symptom onset.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".