MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470494290 · doi:10.1080/14787210.2016.1206816

Management of urinary tract infections in children in an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance

2016· review· en· W2470494290 on OpenAlexaff
Joan Robinson, Nicole Le Saux

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anti-infective Therapy · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of OttawaStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrinalysisAntibioticsMedicineAntibiotic resistanceIntensive care medicineAntimicrobialEmpiric therapyUrinary systemAntibiotic prophylaxisAntibiotic therapyInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicineMicrobiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Accurate diagnosis and appropriate use of antimicrobials for treatment and prevention of urinary tract infections (UTIs) is vital in an era of increasing antibiotic resistance. AREAS COVERED: The article reviews indications for and interpretation of urinalysis and urine culture results for diagnosis of UTI, choice of antibiotics for empiric and definitive UTI therapy, the rationale behind and indications for radiographic investigations, and prevention of UTIs including the complex decision as to whether antibiotic prophylaxis will benefit a child. Expert commentary: Over-diagnosis of UTI is a prevalent problem due to the lack of specificity of both urinalysis and urine culture. The most major recent advance in the field has been the recognition that antibiotic prophylaxis for UTI is rarely indicated as in most situations, the number needed to treat to prevent one UTI is too high to justify the risk of adverse events and development of antimicrobial resistance.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anti-infective TherapySame topicPediatric Urology and Nephrology StudiesFrench-language works237,207