Effectiveness and Safety of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Persons Exposed to Cases of Invasive Group A Streptococcal Disease: A Systematic Review
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
Among close contacts of patients with invasive group A streptococcal (iGAS) infection, the benefits and harms of chemoprophylaxis are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review of studies that reported on persons who, after being exposed to a case of laboratory-confirmed or probable iGAS, received any antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of GAS infection or carriage. Thirty-seven studies including 26 outbreak investigations and 11 case series or reports were included with predominantly descriptive information that suggested that antibiotic prophylaxis may be effective in preventing GAS infection or GAS carriage, with very few serious adverse events. However, current available evidence is scant (with limited information on contacts of iGAS cases) and largely based on studies with weak design and small sample size. Therefore, definitive conclusions on effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis cannot be drawn. Well designed prospective studies are required to establish the benefit-harm profile of antibiotic prophylaxis for secondary prevention of GAS disease among close contacts of iGAS cases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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