Bibliographic record
Abstract
Je remercie mes directeurs le professeur Lise Goulet et les bocteurs banielle Marcoux et Pierre &audreault pour leur encadrement et leur disponibilité.Je remercie aussi les médecins et les infirmières des départements de médecine pédiatrique qui ont collaboré activement à la pharmacovigilcnce des réactions cutanées médicamenteuses.Je remercie l'Université de Montréal, la Faculté de Médecine, le département de médecine sociale et préventive et le centre de recherche de l'l-I6pital 5ainte-Justine qui ont appuyé ce travail.Je ne peux passer sous silence la participation des mères qui ont été assez gentilles pour répondre à toutes mes questions, même quand leurs enfants étaient très malades.le remercie les étudiants en informatique, Pascale Béliveau et Samuel Kadoury qui ont travaillé à la préparation du logiciel pour calculer l'imputabilité avec la méthode Bayésienne.Cette étude a été réalisée avec le soutien financier de la Fondation canadienne de dermatologie.Summary Titie: Pediatric Hospital bermatovigilance from birth fo 4 years.Vety Iii-fie research has been conducted on cutaneous drug reccfions (CbR) in the pediatric population.Our goals were i-o measure the incidence and identify the risk factots of CbR in children aged O to 4 years, hospitalized in the pediatric medicai wards of Sainfe-Iustine Hospitai.A prospective nested case cont roi study has been conducted.An epidemiological inquiry has been made with o questionnaire administered i-o the mothers supported by intensive pharmacovigilance.Ovet a period of 2 years from November 1, 1999 i-o October 31, 2001, we have identified 43 cases representing o cumulafed incidence of 1,24%.Thirty cases have been matched to thirty controls.The drugs mosf frequentiy responsible of CbR in childten were antibiotics.Morbiliiform and maculopapular erupf ions were more frequent, appearing 1 f0 48 hours after drug administration.Main oui-corne measures affer univariate and mulfivariate statisfical analysis were age as a risk facfor (OR: 1,05; 95%ci:O,99-1,11; p=O,O65), a tendency fo increase CbR wifh atopy (OR: 4,48; 95% ci: 0,62-32,17; pzO,l36) and epidural analgesia (OR: 2; 95% ci: 0,75-5,3 pzO,l66) and o tendency as protective factor wifh breastfeeding (OR: 0,93; 95%ci: 0,85-1,01; p=O,ll6).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".