MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947222327 · doi:10.1111/cea.13443

Should testing be initiated prior to amoxicillin challenge in children?

2019· review· en· W2947222327 on OpenAlexaff
Elissa M. Abrams, Moshe Ben‐Shoshan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical & Experimental Allergy · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmoxicillinProvocation testMedicineAllergyDrug allergyAntibioticsIntensive care medicineDrugNarrative reviewAdverse drug reactionPediatricsDermatologyImmunologyPharmacologyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amoxicillin is the most common antibiotic prescribed in children with increasing use over time. While up to 10% of children are labelled as amoxicillin allergic, most children can tolerate amoxicillin after allergy evaluation. It is well documented that the label of amoxicillin allergy in children is associated with adverse health outcomes such as antibiotic-resistant infections. However, it remains controversial how best to assess children for amoxicillin allergy. While in general it is recommended that skin testing be done prior to drug provocation test in the evaluation of amoxicillin allergy, there is increasing evidence that drug provocation testing could be done in lower risk children without skin testing prior. The goal of this article as a narrative review is to review the strengths and limitations of skin testing prior to drug provocation test in children who have a history of either immediate or non-immediate, reactions to amoxicillin.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.511
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.012 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical & Experimental AllergySame topicDrug-Induced Adverse ReactionsFrench-language works237,207