MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545596873 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v54i1.616

Psychotic Reaction Associated with Postpartum Use of Indomethacin

2001· article· en· W1545596873 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Linda J. Klassen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnalgesicBradykininAntipyreticCyclooxygenaseNonsteroidalAdverse effectAnesthesiaReceptorPharmacologyInternal medicineEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Indomethacin, like other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, exhibits anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and antipyretic properties and is therefore used to treat acute and chronic pain. The mechanism by which nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs produce these effects is not fully understood; however, it is believed to be related to the inhibition of cyclooxygenase, an enzyme that catalyzes the formation of prostaglandins.1 Prostaglandins (for example, bradykinin) are thought to sensitize pain receptors to mechanical or chemical stimulation. 1 In gynecologic and obstetric applications, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are useful for treating various pain syndromes thought to result from an increase in serum prostaglandins, such as dysmenorrhea, uterine contractions, and premenstrual physical complaints (back and muscle aches, headache, breast tenderness, and gastrointestinal discomfort). Thirty to sixty percent of patients receiving indomethacin report adverse effects, most involving the central nervous and gastrointestinal systems.1 This report describes a psychotic reaction in a patient who received an indomethacin suppository postpartum.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207