MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158751445

Proton pump inhibitors for irritable infants.

2013· article· en· W2158751445 on OpenAlexaff
Christine H. Smith, David M. Israel, Richard Schreiber, Ran D. Goldman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryingIrritabilityMedicinePneumoniaProton-pump inhibitorPediatricsInterimIntensive care medicinePsychiatryInternal medicineAnxiety
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: Crying is common in infants; however, caring for infants with inconsolable crying, previously also known as colic or reflux, is often extremely distressing for parents. Is there a benefit to using gastric acid suppression (eg, proton pump inhibitors [PPIs]) in these infants? ANSWER: The use of PPIs in infants and children has increased in recent years. The efficacy of proton pump inhibitors has not been demonstrated in the treatment of irritability and excessive crying in otherwise healthy infants younger than 3 months of age. Conversely, while PPIs are generally well tolerated, there is some evidence to link the use of PPIs with increased susceptibility to acute gastroenteritis, community-acquired pneumonia, and disorders of nutrient absorption and utilization. Irrespective of treatment, crying and irritability in infancy generally improve with time. Proton pump inhibitors do not improve symptoms in the interim.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.030

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicInfant Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207