MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1901372988 · doi:10.1111/bcp.12731

Flumazenil, naloxone and the ‘coma cocktail’

2015· review· en· W1901372988 on OpenAlexaff
Marco L.A. Sivilotti

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlumazenil(+)-NaloxoneComa (optics)MedicineAnesthesiaAntidotePharmacologyAgonistAntagonistInternal medicineReceptorToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flumazenil and naloxone are considered to be pharmacologically ideal antidotes. By competitive binding at the molecular target receptors, they are highly specific antagonists of two important drug classes, the benzodiazepines and opioids, respectively. Both antidotes enjoy rapid onset and short duration after parenteral administration, are easily titrated and are essentially devoid of agonist effects. Yet only naloxone is widely used as a component of the 'coma cocktail', a sequence of empirical treatments to correct altered mental status, while experts discourage the use of flumazenil for such patients. This review contrasts the history, indications, published evidence and novel applications for each antidote in order to explain this disparity in the clinical use of these 'ideal' antidotes.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.206
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations108
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207