Prophylaxis for ophthalmia neonatorum in Brazil: A <i>snapshot</i> using a multi-professional national survey
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
BACKGROUND: Brazil is a large country with an elevated incidence of Chlamydiatrachomatis (CT) and Neisseriagonorrhoeae (NG) during pregnancy and variable access to health care. The objective of the study was to identify ophthalmia neonatorum prophylaxis practices in the country. METHODS: A prospective multidisciplinary survey was conducted using a closed social media group. Fifteen questions were developed after literature review. Specific content included categorization of respondents and practices such as type of medication, age at administration, occurrence of clinical and/or chemical conjunctivitis and microbiology identification. Questions were multiple choice, but some allowed written response. RESULTS: A total of 1.015 professionals responded, representing 24 states (92%) and 181 cities; mainly neonatologists (64%) and general pediatricians (21%). 96% of respondents reported performing prophylaxis at their institutions, mostly at birth or <1 h of life (99%), and regardless the mode of delivery (73%). Frequently used medications are: 1% silver nitrate (64%), 2.5% povidone iodine (18%) or 10% silver vitelinate (12%), with some regional variations. Occurrence of chemical conjunctivitis was stated by 58% of the respondents and microbiology identification was unusual. CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmia neonatorum prophylaxis Brazil is almost universal and mainly performed by the use of anti-septic medications, with some regional variability. However, identification and treatment of CT and NG in both parents and newborns is not accomplished.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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