Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Bronchiolitis impacts millions of infants worldwide. Although several therapeutic options stem from highly plausible theoretical rationales for success and some may even offer modest short-term symptom relief, none has been conclusively shown to alter the course of the disease or its major outcomes. However, several recent papers shed light on which treatments show promising preliminary evidence and offer insight into future research endeavors on this topic. This review will summarize bronchiolitis therapy in view of this recent evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: The agents in which theory promises but treatment does not deliver include systemic corticosteroids alone, inhaled bronchodilators alone and antileukotrienes. The most promising combination to date appears to be that of oral dexamethasone and inhaled epinephrine but numerous related issues need to be clarified further. Caretakers need to be counselled about the usual protracted clinical course of bronchiolitis. SUMMARY: Because bronchiolitis is a highly heterogeneous entity, future research challenges should include detailed characterization of infants most likely to benefit from given interventions. In the meantime, stick with the good old time-honored supportive route!
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".