MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163226749 · doi:10.1136/eb-2013-101341

Oral antibiotics confer small benefits and small harms in low-risk children with acute otitis media

2013· letter· en· W2163226749 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hasantha Gunasekera

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute otitis mediaAntibioticsWatchful waitingOtitisPediatricsMastoiditisInternal medicineSurgeryMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: Venekamp RP, Sanders S, Glasziou PP, et al. Antibiotics for acute otitis media in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;1:CD000219.[OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2] Acute otitis media (AOM) affects most children by the time they reach school age and is a common reason for presentation to healthcare professionals globally. Pathogenic bacteria are isolated from middle ear fluid in AOM and so antibiotics are frequently considered necessary. However, unlike other bacterial infections, the vast majority of children with AOM recover within a week without antibiotics. Antibiotics also have known harms and antibiotic resistance is increasing worldwide. Therefore, ‘watchful waiting’ or ‘expectant observation’ is either recommended or considered reasonable in guidelines for the management of uncomplicated AOM in children aged over 2 years in Australia,1 Canada,2 France,2 Germany,2 Scotland,2 Spain,2 the Netherlands,2 UK2 and the … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCochrane%2BDatabase%2BSyst%2BRev%26rft.volume%253D1%26rft.spage%253DCD000219%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F23440776%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=23440776&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F19%2F1%2F9.atom

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: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.202 · 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.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial · Commentary

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207