[A study of non-antibiotic versus antibiotic prophylaxis for recurrent urinary-tract infections in women (the NAPRUTI study)].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient enrolment in the 'Non-antibiotic versus antibiotic prophylaxis for recurrent urinary-tract infections' (NAPRUTI) study was started in September 2005. In this study of women with recurrent urinary-tract infections we aim to investigate the effect of 12 months of non-antibiotic prophylaxis in comparison with antibiotic prophylaxis on the rate of recurrence of urinary-tract infections and the development of antibiotic resistance. The study consists of two interlinked, randomised, clinical non-inferiority trials. In one trial, 280 premenopausal women will receive either cranberry capsules (twice daily 500 mg) or standardised antibiotic therapy (once daily 480 mg trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole). In the other trial, 280 postmenopausal women will receive either oral lactobacilli (twice daily a capsule with > 10(9) colony-forming units of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 and Lactobacillus reuteri RC-14) or standardised antibiotic therapy. Non-inferiority of non-antibiotic prophylaxis would be attractive given its potential to reduce the prevalence of microbial resistance to antibiotics significantly.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".