Review: antibiotics are only slightly more effective than placebo for clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis in adultsCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
J Young Dr J Young, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; jyoung@uhbs.ch Are antibiotics effective for treatment of adults with clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis? Are there any signs or symptoms that identify patients most likely to benefit from antibiotics? Studies selected compared an antibiotic with placebo in adults with clinical signs and symptoms of acute rhinosinusitis. Studies involving diagnosis by imaging, laboratory tests, or bacterial culture were excluded. Outcome was proportion of patients cured. Medline, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and reference lists were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). 10 RCTs providing 11 comparisons (n = 2782, median age 35 y [adolescents were included in 6 RCTs]) met the selection criteria. All trials were double-blinded; loss to follow-up was <4% in all but 2 trials and 3.6% overall. Duration …
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".