The Attitude of Physicians Toward Cold Remedies for Upper Respiratory Infection in Infants and Children: A Questionnaire Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over-the-counter cold remedies are widely used for symptomatic relief of upper respiratory tract infections. The safety of these drugs is not well established in infants and their efficacy is questionable. Our aim was to study the attitude of family physicians and pediatricians toward the use of cold remedies in infants and children. A questionnaire was sent to 400 family physicians and 100 pediatricians randomly selected across Ontario. The overall response rate was 53.2%. Sixteen percent of family physicians recommended cold remedies for infants 0 to 6 months of age compared to 4% of the pediatricians (P = 0.01). For infants 6 to 12 months of age, the difference between pediatricians and family physicians persisted (14% and 38% of, respectively; P < 0.001). Despite that cold remedies are not proven to be effective and some safety issues are associated with their use in the pediatric age group, physicians still recommend them. Continuing medical education programs should address the issue.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".