MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391886777 · doi:10.1002/phar.2907

Response to comment on “International consensus recommendations for the use of prolonged‐infusion β‐lactams endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (<scp>ACCP</scp>), the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (<scp>BSAC</scp>), the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (<scp>CFF</scp>), the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (<scp>ESCMID</scp>), the Infectious Diseases Society of American (<scp>IDSA</scp>), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (<scp>SCCM</scp>), and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists”

2024· letter· en· W4391886777 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Hong, Kevin J. Downes, Alireza FakhriRavari, Jacinda C. Abdul‐Mutakabbir, Joseph L. Kuti, Sarah C J Jorgensen, David C. Young, Mohammad H. Al‐Shaer, Matteo Bassetti, Robert A. Bonomo, Mark Gilchrist, Soo Min Jang, Thomas P. Lodise, Jason A. Roberts, Thomas Tängdén, Athena F. Zuppa, Marc H. Scheetz

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacyAntimicrobial chemotherapyAntimicrobialChemotherapyIntensive care medicineFamily medicineInternal medicineMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Mr. Cobeñas for pointing out the errors in the meta-analysis. We have repeated the meta-analysis with the corrected numbers, and the results are updated. Notably, the overall point estimates are similar to the original report. Accordingly, we have also revised the text within the evidence summary of Recommendation 7. We want to emphasize that Recommendation 7 remains unchanged as the underlying numbers still originate from the same studies, and thus, the overall quality of evidence and strength of our recommendation remain unaffected. The affected studies also were used to inform other PICOs. As such, we have also updated our loading dose subgroup analyses and corresponding text. Similar to Recommendation 7, the updated numbers and corrected meta-analysis do not alter our overall Recommendation 10 regarding use of a loading dose. An erratum will be issued. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

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)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0310.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.038

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.346 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug TherapySame topicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and EfficacyFrench-language works237,207