ANTI-SCORPION VENOM SERUM WITH PRAZOSIN VERSUS PRAZOSIN ALONE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SEVERE SCORPION ENVENOMATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
envenomation. Material & Method: It is a Retrospective observational study from February 2018 to September 2019 conducted in JJM medical college, tertiary care hospital in Davanagere, Karnataka. Children with scorpion envenomation who qualies severity based on composite scoring system(score>5), were included in the study. Children were divided into anti-scorpion venom with prazosin (group A) and prazosin alone(group B) depending on the treatment received. Both the groups were assessed in terms of duration of PICU stay, need of ionotropic support, myocardial dysfunction, mean prazosin doses, recovery from autonomic symptoms. Baseline characteristics in Results: the 2 groups were comparable. Children in group A recovered earlier than those in group B with mean duration of resolution of autonomic symptoms in group A being 16.46 + 5.724 hours and that of group B is 25.6 + 9.088 hours with signicant p value of 0.002. The mean dose of prazosin required in group A is less than group B with the p value of 0.001 which is signicant. The duration of stay in PICU was also signicantly less in Group A than Group B with signicant p value of 0.001. Anti-scorpion venom with prazosin when given within 6 hrs of sting had better outcome. We did not nd any difference in the 2 groups in terms of myocardial dysfunction, ionotropic support, pulmonary edema and the mortality. Conclusion: Anti-scorpion venom with prazosin helps in early recovery from autonomic symptoms even though it didn't help in preventing the complications. Thus use of both Anti-scorpion venom and prazosin in treating severe scorpion envenomation improves the outcome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".