MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096444776

CONCISE COMMUNICATION Rapid Antiviral Effect of Inhaled Zanamivir in the Treatment of Naturally Occurring In¯uenza in Otherwise Healthy Adults

2016· article· en· W7096444776 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZanamivirTiterPlaceboVirusAmantadineViral diseaseOrthomyxoviridae
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The antiviral and clinical effects of inhaled zanamivir (10 mg twice daily for 5 days, started within the ®rst or second day of a ¯ulike illness) were evaluated in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial during the 1997±1998 in¯uenza season in Canada. Pharyngeal secretions were collected with swabs every 12 h during 6 days, and symptoms were self-evaluated twice daily during 14 days. After only 12 h of treatment (1 dose), median virus titers decreased by 1.0 log10 TCID50/mL in the zanamivir group (), compared with a 0.42-log10 increase in then = 17 placebo group ( ;). This was associated with a 4.5-day (47.4%) reduction in then = 10 P =.08 median time to alleviation of all signi®cant ¯u symptoms in the zanamivir recipients (P = after adjusting for the initial virus titer and the time between onset of symptoms and.03 treatment). Resistance to zanamivir was not detected in virus isolates by either phenotypic or genotypic assays. Amantadine has been available in the United States for the treatment of in¯uenza for 13 decades. Nevertheless, its use is limited by its narrow spectrum of activity (effective against in¯uenza A viruses only), frequent side effects, and rapid and

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMosquito-borne diseases and control→French-language works237,207→