Extended interval dosing of gentamicin in premature neonates ≤ 28‐week gestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate an extended interval dosing (EID) regimen of gentamicin in neonates ≤28-week gestation. METHODS: In 2008, an EID regimen for gentamicin was introduced for all neonates admitted to the NICU in Calgary. The dosing interval was based on a 22 h level after the first dose of 5mg/kg. We conducted an observational study in 33 infants ≤28-week gestation on the EID regimen from the first day of life and compared gentamicin peak and trough levels with a historical control of 34 infants who received gentamicin in a dose of 2.5 mg/kg every 24 h (TID, traditional interval dosing). RESULTS: In the EID group, based on the 22 h level, dosing interval was 36 h in 20 neonates and 48 h in 13 neonates. All neonates, except one, achieved therapeutic peak and trough levels. Compared to the TID group, the EID group had higher peak levels (median 9.8 μg/mL vs. 4.6 μg/mL, p < 0.001) with no difference in trough levels. With target peak levels of 5-12 μg/mL and trough levels of <2 μg/mL, a higher proportion of neonates in the TID group would need dose adjustment. CONCLUSION: In neonates ≤ 28-week gestation, an EID regimen from day one of life, using a single level 22 h after the first dose for dosing interval, achieves therapeutic peak and trough levels and more optimum peak levels as compared to a TID regimen.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".