MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4205717398 · doi:10.3410/f.1120388.576567

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Comparison of the clinical effectiveness of oseltamivir and zanamivir against influenza virus infection in children.

2008· dataset· en· W4205717398 on OpenAlexaff
Ethan Rubinstein, Philippe Lagacé‐Wiens

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2008
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZanamivirOseltamivirMedicineVirusInternal medicineNeuraminidase inhibitorInfluenza A virusVirologyPediatricsImmunologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Infectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We compared the clinical effectiveness of oseltamivir and zanamivir in children with influenza A (H1N1) virus, influenza A (H3N2) virus, and influenza B virus infections.METHODS: Total febrile period and the duration of fever after the start of treatment were compared between an oseltamivir-treated group (mean age, 8.9 years; range, 4.0-15.9 years) and a zanamivir-treated group (mean age, 10.0 years; range, 4.0-15.7 years) in the pediatric outpatient clinics of our hospitals. Oseltamivir was used to treat 91 children with influenza A (H3N2) infection and 24 children with influenza A (H1N1) infection. Zanamivir was used to treat 35 children with influenza A (H3N2) infection and 12 children with influenza A (H1N1) infection. Oseltamivir was also used to treat 128 children with influenza B virus infection, and zanamivir was used to treat 59 with influenza B virus infection.RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in total febrile period or duration of fever after the start of treatment between the oseltamivir-treated group and the zanamivir-treated group of children with influenza A (H3N2) infection (mean duration of febrile period, 2.40 days vs. 2.39 days; mean duration of fever after the start of treatment, 1.35 days vs. 1.40 days), influenza A (H1N1) (mean duration of febrile period, 2.60 days vs. 2.46 days; mean duration of fever after the start of treatment, 1.79 days vs, 1.54 days), or influenza B (mean duration of febrile period, 2.95 days vs. 2.84 days; mean duration of fever after the start of treatment, 1.86 days vs. 1.67 days). Oseltamivir was more effective against influenza A (H3N2) than against influenza A (H1N1) or influenza B.CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir and zanamivir were equally effective in reducing the febrile period of children with influenza A (H1N1), influenza A (H3N2), and influenza B virus infection. PMID: 18582202

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1290.053

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicInfluenza Virus Research Studies→French-language works237,207→