Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine appropriate management of the active individual with infectious mononucleosis (IM), including issues of diagnosis, the determination of splenomegaly, and other measures of disease status, the relationship of the disease to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), and the risks of exercise at various points in the disease process. DATA SOURCES: An Ovid/MEDLINE search (January 1996-June 2015) was widely supplemented by "similar articles" found in Ovid/MEDLINE and PubMed, reference lists, and personal files. MAIN RESULTS: Clinical diagnoses of IM are unreliable. Traditional laboratory indicators (lymphocytosis, abnormal lymphocytes, and a heterophile-positive slide test) can be supplemented by more sensitive and more specific but also more costly Epstein-Barr antigen determinations. Clinical estimates of splenomegaly are fallible. Laboratory determinations, commonly by 2D ultrasonography, must take account of methodology, the formulae used in calculations and the individual's body size. The SD of normal values matches the typical increase of size in IM, but repeat measurements can help to monitor regression of the disease. The main risks to the athlete are spontaneous splenic rupture (seen in 0.1%-0.5% of patients and signaled by acute abdominal pain) and progression to chronic fatigue, best avoided by 3 to 4 weeks of restricted activity followed by graded reconditioning. A full recovery of athletic performance is usual with 2 to 3 months of conservative management. CONCLUSIONS: Infectious mononucleosis is a common issue for young athletes. But given accurate diagnosis and the avoidance of splenic rupture and progression to CFS through a few weeks of restricted activity, long-term risks to the health of athletes are few.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".