Famciclovir for ophthalmic zoster: a randomised aciclovir controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of famciclovir with aciclovir for the treatment of ophthalmic zoster. METHODS: Randomised, double masked, aciclovir controlled, parallel group in 87 centres worldwide including 454 patients with ophthalmic zoster of trigeminal nerve (V(1)) comprised the intent to treat population. Oral famciclovir 500 mg three times daily or oral aciclovir 800 mg five times daily for 7 days. Assessments included day 0 (screening), days 3 and 7 (during treatment), days 10, 14, 21, 28 and monthly thereafter, up to 6 months (follow up). Proportion of patients who experienced ocular manifestations, severe manifestations and non-severe manifestations; loss of visual acuity was the main outcome measure. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who experienced one or more ocular manifestations was similar for famciclovir (142/245, 58.0%) and aciclovir (114/196, 58.2%) recipients, with no significant difference between groups (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.68, 1.45). The percentage of patients who experienced severe and non-severe manifestations was similar between groups, with no significant difference. The prevalence of individual ocular manifestations was comparable between groups. There was no significant difference between groups for visual acuity loss. CONCLUSION: Famciclovir 500 mg three times daily was well tolerated and demonstrated efficacy similar to aciclovir 800 mg five times daily.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".