Review: a single dose of nasal decongestant reduces congestion in the short term in adults with the common cold; insufficient evidence exists on the effectiveness of repeated doses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taverner D, Latte J, Draper M. Nasal decongestants for the common cold. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(3):CD001953. Q Are nasal decongestants effective for reducing the symptom of nasal congestion in adults and children with the common cold? Are adverse effects associated with use? ### ![Graphic][1]</img>Data sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( Cochrane Library , Issue 1, 2004), Medline (1996 to February 2004), EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (1996 to February 2004), Current Contents (February 2004), hand searches of review citations from other references, and contact with known principal investigators and pharmaceutical companies. ### ![Graphic][2]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in any language that compared topical or oral single active nasal decongestants (aqueous spray, drops or dry powder, tablets, or capsules) with placebo (>12 patients/group) in adults or children who had the common cold … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".