MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143107777

Erythema multiforme in children: the steroid debate.

2013· article· en· W2143107777 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Chan, Ran D. Goldman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErythema multiformeMedicineInterimDermatologyErythemaAlternative medicineRandomized controlled trialIntensive care medicineSurgeryPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: In my office I occasionally see children who have rashes with "target lesions" and who are diagnosed with erythema multiforme (EM). When should these children receive steroids, and when should the illness be allowed to follow its natural course without steroid treatment? ANSWER: Erythema multiforme is relatively common in children. Current recommendations suggest not to treat EM minor with systemic steroids and that topical steroids might be of benefit. The use of systemic steroids for EM major remains controversial, as there is evidence both for and against treatment, and no randomized controlled trials have been done. Further studies need to address the benefit of steroids, and in the interim, physicians should decide on a treatment based on the severity of EM and in consultation with a dermatologist, if available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDrug-Induced Adverse ReactionsFrench-language works237,207