MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293896209 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2015.331

Critical Appraisal of the Milwaukee Protocol for Rabies: This Failed Approach Should Be Abandoned

2015· review· en· W2293896209 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Frederick A. Zeiler, Alan C. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRabiesProtocol (science)EncephalitisComa (optics)Intensive care medicineCerebral vasospasmVasospasmAnesthesiaVirologyPathologySubarachnoid hemorrhageAlternative medicineVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Milwaukee protocol has been attributed to survival in rabies encephalitis despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting its therapeutic measures. We have reviewed the literature with reference to specific treatment recommendations made within the protocol. Current literature fails to support an important role for excitotoxicity and cerebral vasospasm in rabies encephalitis. Therapies suggested in the Milwaukee protocol include therapeutic coma, ketamine infusion, amantadine, and the screening/prophylaxis/management of cerebral vasospasm. None of these therapies can be substantiated in rabies or other forms of acute viral encephalitis. Serious concerns over the current protocol recommendations are warranted. The recommendations made by the Milwaukee protocol warrant serious reconsideration before any future use of this failed protocol.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.023
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0060.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.231 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations80
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207