MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135859257 · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2015-110271

Antivirals in combination with corticosteroids compared to corticosteroids alone improve facial recovery in severe Bell's palsy… and possibly more?

2015· review· en· W2135859257 on OpenAlexaff
John R. de Almeida

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBell's palsyMedicinePalsyParesisFacial paralysisFacial nerveParalysisHerpes simplex virusIncidence (geometry)GuidelineSurgeryPediatricsVirusPathologyVirologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: Gagyor I, Madhok VB, Daly F, et al. Antiviral treatment for Bell's palsy (idiopathic facial paralysis). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015:CD001869. Bell's palsy is an acute, idiopathic paresis or paralysis of the facial nerve. The annual incidence is between 20 and 30 cases per 100 000.1 It is believed to be caused by a herpes simplex viral infection affecting the facial nerve.2 As such, antivirals have been used to treat this condition. Although several systematic reviews failed to show a benefit of antivirals in facial nerve recovery,3 ,4 one previous review demonstrated a possible benefit of antivirals in addition to corticosteroids5 leading to a subsequent guideline suggesting that antivirals may benefit patients with severe Bell's palsy.6 The authors performed a rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis …

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207