Ear drops containing steroids were better than acetic acid for otitis externa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
van Balen FA, Smit WM, Zuithoff NP, et al . Clinical efficacy of three common treatments in acute otitis externa in primary care: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2003;327:1201–5.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In patients with acute otitis externa, what is the relative effectiveness of ear drops containing acetic acid, steroids and acetic acid, and steroids and antibiotics? ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: concealed. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: blinded (health care providers and patients). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: 42 days. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: 47 general practices in the central part of the Netherlands. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: 213 patients (mean age 43 y, 50% men) presenting with signs and symptoms of acute otitis externa. Exclusion criteria: age ⩽17 years, pregnancy, otitis externa lasting >3 weeks, furuncle in the external auditory canal, acute otitis media, perforated eardrum, perichondritis, fever, allergy to study drugs, or treatment for acute otitis externa in the past month. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Interventions: 3 ear … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft.stitle%253DBMJ%26rft.aulast%253Dvan%2BBalen%26rft.auinit1%253DF.%2BA%2BM%26rft.volume%253D327%26rft.issue%253D7425%26rft.spage%253D1201%26rft.epage%253D1205%26rft.atitle%253DClinical%2Befficacy%2Bof%2Bthree%2Bcommon%2Btreatments%2Bin%2Bacute%2Botitis%2Bexterna%2Bin%2Bprimary%2Bcare%253A%2Brandomised%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.327.7425.1201%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14630756%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/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=327/7425/1201&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F2%2F43.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it