Antibiotics are not beneficial for patients with clinically diagnosed uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Lemiengre MB, van Driel ML, Merenstein D, et al. Antibiotics for clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 10: CD006089.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3] Acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) is one of the most frequently encountered conditions in primary care; however, its management remains controversial. Until recently, recommendations in ARS have focused principally on differentiating between viral and bacterial aetiologies, with antibiotics routinely recommended for all cases of presumed bacterial origin. However, complications from antibiotics on an individual and societal level have led to concerns regarding this approach. Over the past two decades, several investigators have questioned the need for antibiotic treatment in ARS, performing prospective trials suggesting that antibiotic therapy offers a marginal benefit at best. Physicians nevertheless remain to be convinced, as prescribing behaviour remains out of line with guideline recommendations.1 In this recent Cochrane review, the authors present a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials for antibiotics in ARS, … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCochrane%2Bdatabase%2Bof%2Bsystematic%2Breviews%2B%2528Online%2529%26rft.stitle%253DCochrane%2BDatabase%2BSyst%2BRev%26rft.aulast%253DLemiengre%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%2BB.%26rft.volume%253D10%26rft.spage%253DCD006089%26rft.epage%253DCD006089%26rft.atitle%253DAntibiotics%2Bfor%2Bclinically%2Bdiagnosed%2Bacute%2Brhinosinusitis%2Bin%2Badults.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1002%252F14651858.CD006089.pub4%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F23076918%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=10.1002/14651858.CD006089.pub4&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=23076918&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F18%2F5%2Fe41.atom
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 | Not applicable | low |
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 | 0.007 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.007 |
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.
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".