MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Amphotericin B-Deoxycholate is as Effective and Safe as the Costly Amphotericin B Colloidal Dispersion in the Treatment of Paediatric Invasive Fungal Infections

2014· article· en· W2167123339 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarinah Tamring, T. Lane, Hani Syazwani Mohd Shah, Harikrishnan Shanmuganathan, Tzar Mohd Nizam Khaithir, Ahmad Nazrun Shuid, Boekhtiar Borhanuddin, Isa Naina Mohamed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy and Nutrition Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
KeywordsAmphotericin BAdverse effectMedicineAmphotericin B deoxycholateInternal medicineAntifungalDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmBD) and amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (AmBCD) are the two most commonly used antifungals for invasive fungal infections (IFI) among paediatric patients. The objective of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy, adverse effects and cost-effectiveness between AmBD and AmBCD in the treatment of IFI among paediatric patients admitted at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC).Methods: Secondary data analysis of the medical records of all paediatric patients with IFI was obtained and data extraction was performed for patients admitted between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2011. Efficacy of treatment was determined and reports of adverse effects were noted.Results: Between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2011, thirty-five patients received AmBD-only treatment and five patients received AmBCD-only treatment. Twenty-four patients were males and the mean age was 7.18 (SD 4.59) years. On average, the AmBCD treatment course was significantly more expensive than AmBD (p

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy and Nutrition SciencesSame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207