Bronchiectasis with secondary pulmonary infection in a child
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Although bronchiectasis is conventionally considered a chronic pulmonary disease of adulthood, knowledge of pediatric bronchiectasis not related to cystic fibrosis started to emerge. Limited information in this field is available and the management is based on expert opinion. PATIENT CONCERNS: An 8-year-old girl admitted for 7 days history of wet cough, purulent fetid sputum, shortness of breath and low-grade fever. The wet cough has presented for the past 4 years, during which she had frequent hospitalization for recurrent lower respiratory tract infections. DIAGNOSIS: Chest high-resolution computerized tomography revealed diffuse bronchial dilations accompanied by inflammation in the bilateral lung fields. Microbiologic investigation for bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was positive for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. INTERVENTIONS: With a working diagnosis of bronchiectasis with secondary pulmonary infection, sensitive cefoperazone-sulbactam was administrated for 14 days with gradual improvement of clinical symptoms. Bronchoscopy washing substantially soothed the symptoms, reducing the cough and sputum volumes. OUTCOMES: The child was discharged after 14 days, and treated on long-term prophylactic antibiotic use (amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, 20 mg/kg/d, ≥ 4 weeks). LESSONS: Although bronchiectasisis are condition in childhood, the diagnosis is suspected in children with persistent wet or productive cough, and should be confirmed by a chest high-resolution computerized tomography scan. Antibiotics and airway clearance techniques represent the milestones of bronchiectasis management although there are only a few guidelines in children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".