Consensus treatment plans for periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, pharyngitis and adenitis syndrome (PFAPA): a framework to evaluate treatment responses from the childhood arthritis and rheumatology research alliance (CARRA) PFAPA work group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, pharyngitis, and cervical adenitis (PFAPA) syndrome is the most common periodic fever syndrome in children. There is considerable heterogeneity in management strategies and a lack of evidence-based treatment guidelines. Consensus treatment plans (CTPs) are standardized treatment regimens that are derived based upon best available evidence and current treatment practices that are a way to enable comparative effectiveness studies to identify optimal therapy and are less costly to execute than randomized, double blind placebo controlled trials. The purpose of this project was to develop CTPs and response criteria for PFAPA. METHODS: The CARRA PFAPA Working Group is composed of pediatric rheumatologists, infectious disease specialists, allergists/immunologists and otolaryngologists. An extensive literature review was conducted followed by a survey to assess physician practice patterns. This was followed by virtual and in-person meetings between 2014 and 2018. Nominal group technique (NGT) was employed to develop CTPs, as well as inclusion criteria for entry into future treatment studies, and response criteria. Consensus required 80% agreement. RESULTS: The PFAPA working group developed CTPs resulting in 4 different treatment arms: 1. Antipyretic, 2. Abortive (corticosteroids), 3. Prophylaxis (colchicine or cimetidine) and 4. Surgical (tonsillectomy). Consensus was obtained among CARRA members for those defining patient characteristics who qualify for participation in the CTP PFAPA study. CONCLUSION: The goal is for the CTPs developed by our group to lead to future comparative effectiveness studies that will generate evidence-driven therapeutic guidelines for this periodic inflammatory disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.331 | 0.242 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".