Treatment practices in the management of scabies in infants younger than two months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Efficacy and safety data of scabies treatments in infants are limited. Although topical permethrin is used in the treatment of scabies in adults, it is not approved for use in infants younger than 2 months of age in many parts of the world. This study aimed to describe treatment practices in the management of scabies in infants younger than 2 months. METHODS: An online survey was developed and distributed to physicians worldwide through the Society of Pediatric Dermatology and the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. Data collected included demographics, medication availability, experience using medications, deterrents to medication use, medication administration preferences, perceived and experienced medication side effects, and preferred treatment agent in this population. RESULTS: In total, 57 physicians from seven countries responded. The majority of respondents were board-certified in pediatric dermatology (48/57, 84.2%) and resided in the United States (44/57, 77.2%). Respondents had experience using permethrin (47/57, 82.5%) and precipitated sulfur (35/57, 61.4%) most frequently. Most (38/57, 66.7%) preferred permethrin as their treatment of choice. Among those who did not use permethrin, potential side effects (8/10, 80%) were most frequently reported as a deterrent from its use. However, only 4.3% (22/47) of those who used permethrin reported side effects, including itching, erythema, and xerosis. CONCLUSIONS: Permethrin is frequently used in the treatment of infants younger than 2 months with scabies. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that permethrin is the preferred treatment agent among sampled dermatologists for infants younger than 2 months. Few side effects were reported, and none were serious.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".