Stabilité hors emballage des comprimés de lansoprazole orodispersibles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La population pediatrique est sujette au reflux gastroœsophagien, aux ulceres peptiques et a d’autres pathologies liees a l’acidite gastrique, et les cas les plus graves necessitent une intervention pharmacologique1,2. Un des choix de traitement est l’administration d’un inhibiteur de la pompe a protons (IPP). Cependant, la majorite des IPP sont disponibles au Quebec sous forme de comprimes solides. L’administration de ces comprimes a une population pediatrique constitue donc un probleme. Plusieurs preparations liquides d’IPP ont ete proposees, mais aucune d’elles n’est reellement acceptable en raison de problemes de stabilite et d’efficacite3,4. Entre autres, la solution de lansoprazole dans du bicarbonate de sodium n’est pas conforme aux exigences USP pour les formulations enteriques. De plus, une formulation de lansoprazole dans l’Orablend (Laboratoires Paddock, MN, E.-U.) ne presente pas de stabilite a long terme acceptable4. Consequemment, l’hopital pediatrique CHU Sainte-Justine a decide de ne plus recommander les formulations liquides d’IPP, mais plutot de proposer l’utilisation de comprimes de lansoprazole orodispersibles (PrevacidMD FasTab, Abbott Canada, Montreal, QC, Canada). Ces comprimes sont coupes en deux ou en quatre selon la dose desiree, puis dissous dans de l’eau et immediatement administres au patient. A defaut de connaitre leur stabilite, les soignants jettent simplement les portions inutilisees. Etant donne le cout de ce medicament, il est interessant de savoir si la moitie inutilisee, sortie de son emballage, est suffisamment stable pour etre utilisee le lendemain.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".