First Place Award: Can cefazolin be used in orthopaedic surgery for patients with a self-reported non-IgE mediated penicillin allergy? A prospective case series
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cefazolin is the current recommendation for antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery. However, reported cross-reactivity to first generation cephalosporins in patients with a penicillin allergy ranges from 4% to 18%. In their reports on the rates of cross-reactivity, previous authors have not distinguished IgE from non-IgE reactions. The purpose of this study was to determine the various reactions that are reported as a penicillin allergy and the rate of cefazolin cross-reactivity in patients having only non-IgE reactions to penicillin. Methods: This is a prospective case study of consecutive patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery that had indications for prophylactic antibiotics over a 4-year period. The patients’ self-reported specific allergic reactions to penicillin were noted. The reactions were characterized as either IgE or non-IgE mediated. Non-IgE mediated penicillin allergic patients were given cefazolin in the operating room under a controlled setting. Any adverse reaction after the administration of cefazolin was recorded. Results: There were 801 patients. The prevalence of a reported penicillin allergy was 14.1%. Non-IgE mediated reactions accounted for 73.5% of patients reporting a penicillin allergy. Of the 81 non-IgE mediated penicillin allergic patients who received cefazolin, no adverse reactions were reported. Conclusions: It is important to obtain the specific reaction in patients reporting that they are allergic to penicillin to guide the choice of antibiotics. In patients who report a non-IgE reaction to penicillin, it is safe to administer cefazolin.
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.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it