Effectiveness, barriers, and facilitating factors of strategies for active delabeling of patients with penicillin allergy labels: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Up to 15 % of adult patients in the clinical setting report to be allergic to penicillin. However, in most cases penicillin allergy is not confirmed. Due to the negative aspects associated with erroneous penicillin allergy, the implementation of active delabeling processes for penicillin allergy is an important part of antibiotic stewardship programs. Depending on the clinical setting, different factors need to be considered during implementation. This review examines the effectiveness of different delabeling interventions and summarizes components and structures that facilitate, support, or constrain structured penicillin allergy delabeling. Methods and analysis This review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The Databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on any intervention to identify, assess, or rule out erroneous penicillin allergy. Study design, intervention type, professional groups involved, effectiveness, limitations, barriers, facilitating factors, clinical setting, and associated regulatory factors will be extracted and analyzed. Two independent reviewers will perform the screening process and data extraction. Discordant decisions will be resolved through review by a third reviewer. Bias assessment of the individual studies will be performed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Ethics and dissemination Because individual patient-related data is not analyzed, an ethical approval is not required. The review will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. STRENGHTS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY - The systematic review will adhere to the PRISMA guidelines. - A wide search strategy is used and the search will be conducted on three major databases. - The search is focused on studies reporting on facilitators and barriers for implementation as well as effectiveness of penicillin allergy delabeling interventions. - Data extraction will be performed using an established second look process. - Risk for bias in the individual studies as well as external validity is assessed using an established checklist (Newcastle Ottawa Scale).
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 | 0.090 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.006 |
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".