Phage Therapy in Korea: A Prescribers' Survey of Attitudes Amongst Korean Infectious Diseases Specialists Towards Phage Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Concerns about the rise in antimicrobial resistance have led to renewed interest in phage therapy worldwide, but perceptions among relevant medical professionals in Korea remain largely unknown. Materials and Methods:We conducted a semi-quantitative online survey to evaluate the Korean infectious disease specialists' perception of phage therapy. Results:We sent out the link to the questionnaire to 380 subjects and received 91 replies, with 90/91 respondents identifying as Korean infectious diseases specialists or trainees.Ten out of 91 (11.0%) respondents scored themselves as well-informed about phage therapy.The majority (93.4%) of respondents would consider using phage therapy if the safety of the phage formulation is guaranteed, and 80% of respondents would consider participating in clinical trials with phage therapy given adequate support.The biggest concern was uncertainty about safety (73.6%) and efficacy (65.9%).Acinetobacter baumannii was ranked as a high priority for phage therapy research, as were bone and joint infections.Conclusion: Korean infectious diseases specialists are receptive to phage therapy, but a better understanding of safety, efficacy and clinical trials are warranted to progress phage therapy within the Korean healthcare system.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".