MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postmortem Tissue Distribution of Atomoxetine Following Fatal and Nonfatal Doses—Three Case Reports

2006· article· en· W1966190516 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Garside, Jeri D. Ropero‐Miller, Ellen C. Riemer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtomoxetineAtomoxetine hydrochlorideMedicinePharmacokineticsForensic toxicologyPharmacologyAnesthesiaAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderChemistryMethylphenidatePsychiatryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atomoxetine (Strattera, Lilly) is a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) prescribed for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, adolescents, and adults. It is the first nonstimulant drug-therapy option for ADHD. Three case reports are presented in which atomoxetine was detected in two individuals who died from causes unrelated to the drug and a third from the intentional ingestion of atomoxetine and other drugs. In addition, a brief description of the pharmacokinetics and side effects of atomoxetine are given. Postmortem fluid and tissue concentrations of atomoxetine were as follows: aortic blood, <0.1-8.3 mg/L; femoral blood, 0.33-5.4 mg/L; vitreous humor, 0.1-0.96 mg/L; bile, 1.0-33 g/L; urine, <0.1 mg/L; liver, <0.44-29 mg/kg; and gastric contents, 0.0097-16.8 mg total. Autopsy findings in the two cases in which death was not attributed to drug toxicity included arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The analytical method utilized was a modified basic drug, liquid-liquid procedure followed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and nitrogen phosphorous detection. Atomoxetine can be considered nontoxic at whole blood and liver concentrations below 1.3 mg/L and 5 mg/kg, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207