Safety of ceftriaxone in paediatrics: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ceftriaxone is widely used in children in the treatment of sepsis. However, concerns have been raised about the safety of ceftriaxone, especially in young children. The aim of this review is to systematically evaluate the safety of ceftriaxone in children of all age groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring systems will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, case series and case reports evaluating the safety of ceftriaxone in children. The Cochrane risk of bias tool, Newcastle-Ottawa and quality assessment tools developed by the National Institutes of Health will be used for quality assessment. Meta-analysis of the incidence of ADRs from RCTs and prospective studies will be done. Subgroup analyses will be performed for age and dosage regimen. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data are collected. This systematic review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and at conference meetings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017055428.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".