Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-dose or “pulse” corticosteroid therapy is used to treat a vast array of conditions. There is considerable evidence for their use in musculoskeletal diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, as well as dermatological diseases, such as psoriasis. They are also used in the treatment of a variety of other conditions, including some renal, hematological, ophthalmic, neurological, nephrological, pulmonary, gastrointestinal and neoplastic diseases. Pulse therapy typically refers to the administration of more than 250 mg prednisone (or equivalent) per day in an intermittent fashion to enhance the therapeutic effect and lessen the long-term adverse effects.1 Although the association between bradycardia and high-dose corticosteroids was first documented in 1986,2 it is not a commonly reported adverse effect.1 Cardiac arrhythmias have been reported to occur in 1% to 82% of patients receiving high doses of corticosteroids.3,4 These adverse effects, which include atrial fibrillation/flutter, ventricular tachycardias and sinus bradycardia,5 are usually associated with the intravenous route of administration. New reports have emerged, however, indicating that oral pulse steroids have a similar risk of inducing bradycardia and other arrhythmias.5-7 This is of significance because the oral route of administration is becoming increasingly more common due to the improved patient convenience and cost and similar efficacy.1 In this report, we describe a patient who developed bradycardia after receiving a course of oral corticosteroids for the treatment of a multiple sclerosis exacerbation. We hope that this case serves as a reminder of the critical role that pharmacists can play in preventing and monitoring for corticosteroid-induced bradycardia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".