The second-hand effects of antibiotics: communicating the public health risks of drug resistance
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
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a threat to modern medicine, but there are challenges in communicating its urgency and scope and potential solutions to this growing problem. It is recognized that AMR has a 'language problem' and the way in which healthcare professionals communicate about AMR may not always resonate with patients. Many patients are unaware that antibiotics can have detrimental effects to those beyond the recipient, due to transmission of drug-resistant organisms. The overestimation of benefits and underestimation of risks helps to fuel demand for antibiotic use in situations where they may be of little or no benefit. To better communicate risks, clinicians may borrow the term 'second-hand' from efforts to reduce smoking cessation. We present several examples where antibiotics themselves have second-hand effects beyond the individual recipient in hospitals, long-term care homes and the community. Incorporation of the concept of the second-hand effects of antibiotics into patient counselling, mass messaging and future research may help facilitate a more balanced discussion about the benefits and risks of antibiotic use in order to use these agents more appropriately.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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