Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis in the setting of prenatal hydronephrosis and vesicoureteral reflux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis (CAP) has traditionally been offered for children with recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) or those at risk, including children diagnosed with prenatal hydronephrosis (HN) and vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). However, indications for antibiotic prophylaxis are controversial, data on who should benefit from this therapy is conflicting and, thus, guidelines are unable to provide conclusive recommendations. In the setting of prenatal HN, although randomized trials are currently underway, most evidence is derived from low- to moderate-quality observational studies. Although there is no benefit in those with low-grade HN, a systematic review of the available studies showed that high-grade HN patients on prophylaxis experienced fewer infections with an estimated number needed to treat of 7. On the other hand, there are eight randomized trials that have investigated the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in the setting of VUR. Although four of the studies have demonstrated some value of prophylaxis and the other four have not, meta-analysis has shown an overall benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing infections. The observed differences are likely due to different inclusion criteria and study heterogeneity. Although generalizing results of meta-analyses to all children is tempting, an individualized approach, by determining which patients best behave like those of the included studies, is recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".