Systematic literature review to identify methods for treating and preventing bacterial skin infections in Indigenous children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Bacterial skin infections in Indigenous children in Australia frequently lead them to access primary health care. This systematic review aims to identify and analyse available studies describing the treatment and prevention of bacterial skin infections in Indigenous children. METHODS: Electronic databases including Scopus, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest, Informit and Google Scholar were searched. Studies in English published between August 1994 and September 2016, with the subject of bacterial skin infections involving Indigenous children and conducted in Australia, New Zealand, the USA or Canada were selected. RESULTS: Initially 1474 articles were identified. After the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 10 articles remained. Strategies for the treatment and prevention of bacterial skin infections included the management of active infections and lesions, improving environmental and personal hygiene, the installation of swimming pools and screening and treatment. CONCLUSION: There is a need for more, rigorous, large-scale studies to develop evidence for appropriate, culturally acceptable methods to prevent and manage bacterial skin infections in Indigenous children in Australia. The problem is complex with multiple determinants. Until underlying socioeconomic conditions are addressed skin infections will continue to be a burden to communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".