Zinc supplementation for probable serious bacterial infection in early infancy may reduce the need for antibiotic change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Bhatnagar S, Wadhwa N, Aneja S, et al. Zinc as adjunct treatment in infants aged between 7 and 120 days with probable serious bacterial infection: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 379: 2072– 8.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] It has now been over 15 years since the publication of the landmark study by Sazawal et al 1 demonstrating the efficacy of zinc supplementation during an acute diarrheal episode in children under 5. Since then, dozens of clinical trials have been undertaken to further unravel the role of zinc supplementation to reduce under-5 morbidity and mortality. It is widely accepted that in zinc-deficient populations, zinc supplementation has both curative and preventive effects in the management of acute or chronic childhood diarrhoea with the potential to significantly reduce under-5 mortality.2 While systematic reviews have concluded zinc has no impact on childhood … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253DBhatnagar%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%26rft.volume%253D379%26rft.issue%253D9831%26rft.spage%253D2072%26rft.epage%253D2078%26rft.atitle%253DZinc%2Bas%2Badjunct%2Btreatment%2Bin%2Binfants%2Baged%2Bbetween%2B7%2Band%2B120%2Bdays%2Bwith%2Bprobable%2Bserious%2Bbacterial%2Binfection%253A%2Ba%2Brandomised%252C%2Bdouble-blind%252C%2Bplacebo-controlled%2Btrial.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252812%252960477-2%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F22656335%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=10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60477-2&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=22656335&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F18%2F3%2Fe22.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000304759100032&link_type=ISI
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.012 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".