MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2778112360 · doi:10.3947/ic.2017.49.4.326

Guidelines for the Antibiotic Use in Adults with Acute Upper Respiratory Tract Infections

2017· review· en· W2778112360 on OpenAlexaff
Young Kyung Yoon, Chan‐Soon Park, Jae Wook Kim, Kyurin Hwang, Sei Young Lee, Tae Hoon Kim, Do‐Yang Park, Hyun Jun Kim, Dong‐Young Kim, Hyun Jong Lee, Hyun-Young Shin, Yong You, Dong Ah Park, Shin‐Woo Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection and Chemotherapy · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Occupational Therapists
FundersKorea Centers for Disease Control and PreventionCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineSinusitisIntensive care medicineRespiratory tract infectionsAntibioticsMultidisciplinary approachSurgeryInternal medicineRespiratory systemPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

These guidelines were developed as part of the 2016 Policy Research Servicing Project by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A multidisciplinary approach was taken to formulate this guideline to provide practical information about the diagnosis and treatment of adults with acute upper respiratory tract infection, with the ultimate aim to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics. The formulation of this guideline was based on a systematic literature review and analysis of the latest research findings to facilitate evidence-based practice, and focused on key questions to help clinicians obtain solutions to clinical questions that may arise during the care of a patient. These guidelines mainly cover the subjects on the assessment of antibiotic indications and appropriate selection of antibiotics for adult patients with acute pharyngotonsillitis or acute sinusitis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection and ChemotherapySame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207