MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973632537 · doi:10.1592/phco.31.8.776

A Reliable and Safe Method of Collecting Blood Samples from Implantable Central Venous Catheters for Determination of Plasma Gentamicin Concentrations

2011· article· en· W1973632537 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Chen, Sabrina Boodhan, Munira Nanji, Santhosh Sekharan, Sara Lavoratore, Leonardo R. Brand aTo, Jeffrey Skolnik, L. Lee Dupuis

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids Foundation
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsMedicineGentamicinBlood samplingVenous bloodAnesthesiaIntraclass correlationCatheterSurgeryPeripherally inserted central catheterInternal medicineAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent of agreement between plasma gentamicin concentrations determined from samples collected by using implantable subcutaneous central venous catheters (ports) with the push-pull method and those collected by finger lancet punctures in children with febrile neutropenia. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: University-affiliated, tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty-two children with cancer who had single- or double-lumen ports and who received gentamicin for treatment of febrile neutropenia between February 2008 and October 2009. INTERVENTION: One blood sample was collected from the port by using the push-pull method at the same time one blood sample was collected by finger lancet puncture for determination of plasma gentamicin concentrations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-four pairs of samples were available for assessment of agreement, and 43 were available for pharmacokinetic analysis. Agreement between plasma gentamicin concentrations determined from blood samples from ports and finger lancet punctures was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis, and comparison of simulated dosage adjustments. Changes in port patency were monitored for 1 week after port sampling. Differences in simulated dosage adjustments calculated by using either the port or finger lancet puncture samples that differed by greater than 20% were considered clinically significant. Agreement between the 44 finger lancet puncture and port sample pairs was excellent (ICC 0.991, 95% confidence interval 0.984-0.995). Port plasma gentamicin concentrations were 4.7% lower than those concentrations determined in blood from finger lancet punctures. The observed limits of agreement ranged from -20.5% to 11%. Differences in dosage adjustments calculated by using port and finger lancet puncture plasma gentamicin concentrations were not clinically significant in 38 (88%) of 43 cases. No changes in port patency were observed in the week after port sampling. CONCLUSION: The push-pull method of blood sampling is a reliable and safe option for determining plasma gentamicin concentrations in children with ports.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug TherapySame topicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and EfficacyFrench-language works237,207