Should a hospitalized child receive empiric treatment with acyclovir?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Herpes simplex encephalitis is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality and may be related to timely diagnosis and treatment. While awaiting the results of testing, hospitalization and empiric treatment with acyclovir is recommended, though the direct and indirect costs associated with this management are substantial. We sought to examine children hospitalized for possible herpes simplex encephalitis, following clinical and laboratory assessment in the emergency department, and empiric treatment with acyclovir, in order to describe the proportion receiving a complete course of treatment; and to identify the clinical variables which are associated with receiving a complete course, as compared with an incomplete course of acyclovir. METHODS: Hospitalized children prescribed acyclovir were included in this case control study. Clinical, laboratory and diagnostic variables were abstracted for children prescribed a complete (≥ 14 days) or an incomplete course (<14 days) of acyclovir. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: 289 children met eligibility criteria, 30 (10%) received a complete course and 259 (90%) received an incomplete course. A history of mucocutaneous herpes simplex virus infection (p < 0.01), Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 13 (p = 0.02), focal neurologic findings (p = 0.001) and elevated cerebrospinal fluid white blood cell count (p = 0.05) were associated with a complete course of acyclovir. CONCLUSIONS: Many children did not complete a full course of therapy. Unnecessary testing and treatment is burdensome to families and the health care system. Possible predictive variables include abnormal Glascow Coma Scale, focal neurologic findings and cerebrospinal fluid pleocytosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".