Scropifav Antivenom Versus Supportive Care Alone in the Treatment of Pediatric Scorpion Envenomation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scorpion envenomation is a significant public health concern in specific regions and can have severe consequences in pediatric patients. The efficacy of antivenom treatment remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical course and outcomes of pediatric scorpion envenomation in patients receiving SCORPIFAV antivenom versus supportive care alone. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of children aged 0-18 years presenting with grade ≥2 scorpion envenomation to the pediatric emergency department at Soroka University Medical Center, Israel, between 2014 and 2020. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients who received SCORPIFAV and those treated with supportive care alone. RESULTS: A total of 194 children were included (median age: 3 years, interquartile range: 2-8 years); 125 received SCORPIFAV and 69 received supportive care only. Patients treated with SCORPIFAV required less sedation (10.3% vs. 23.4%, P = 0.02), less analgesia (53.3% vs. 81.3%, P < 0.001), and fewer antihypertensive medications (0% vs. 17.2%, P < 0.001). SCORPIFAV administration was associated with higher odds of requiring minimal additional treatment (OR = 2.568, 95% CI, 1.168-5.646, P = 0.019). No significant differences were found in pediatric intensive care unit admission rates or length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: In pediatric patients with grade ≥2 scorpion envenomation, SCORPIFAV use was associated with reduced need for sedatives, analgesics, and antihypertensive medications. These findings suggest that early administration of SCORPIFAV in the emergency setting may help attenuate the sympathetic response and reduce overall treatment intensity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".