Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physicians frequently prescribe short-term corticosteroids (CSs) to treat acute and self-limiting diseases. Standard texts and articles do not usually discuss the possible, although infrequent, risks of short-term CSs. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that side effects, although uncommon, can occur with short-term CSs and that these can occasionally be serious. METHODS: Medline peer review literature in English (1985-2006) was searched to identify the potential risks of CSs. Standard textbooks of dermatology, gastroenterology, ophthalmology, pharmacology, respirology, and rheumatology were reviewed. Because the results showed some factual discordance and a dearth of precise data, the results for each body system were reviewed with two relevant clinical specialists at North York General Hospital (with at least 20 years' experience). Further information was obtained from a questionnaire of 200 physicians in North York General Hospital and by feedback from an additional 100 physicians during a presentation of this material at the American Academy of Dermatology. RESULTS: Short-term CSs are generally safe, but there have been numerous reports of associated avascular necrosis and a few cases of fatal varicella-zoster in immunocompetent patients. Severe mood changes and psychotic reactions rarely occur unpredictably with short-term CSs. These events are rare, and most treatments with short-term CSs are problem free. CONCLUSIONS: Problems are infrequent, but patients must be informed of all material risks and treatment options. Thorough chart documentation is required, and patient consent must be given. CS doses should be as low as possible, and CS courses should be as infrequent and as short as possible. The literature reviewed in this article clearly indicates that a short course of CS of 1 week, in the absence of specific contraindications, is unlikely to be harmful (psychotic or prepsychotic episodes possibly excepted).
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".