Accidental Methadone Ingestion in an Infant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We discuss accidental methadone intoxication in an 11-month-old female infant, review the literature, and stress the potential for child abuse among methadone-maintained caregivers. CASE: An 11-month-old female infant presented with lethargy. Vital signs were normal, and pupils were constricted. Sepsis workup revealed no evidence of bacterial infection. High venous pCO2 suggested respiratory acidosis. Urine toxicology revealed high concentrations of methadone and its metabolites, and the diagnosis of methadone intoxication was confirmed when 0.1 mg/kg intravenous naloxone normalized the child's behavior. Social service agency inquiries found that the child's grandfather had been prescribed methadone for acquired morphine addiction. He carried 5-mg methadone tablets in his pocket and had recently babysat the infant. The patient was subsequently discharged home with pediatric and community services follow-up. DISCUSSION: Methadone intoxication should be considered in children presenting with lethargy, miosis, and respiratory depression. Seventy-two percent of reported methadone poisoning patients are symptomatic, and unintentional poisoning is a real danger to children because small amounts can be fatal. There are also several case reports where the cause of intoxication was homicide by the parents. Initial management consists of establishing an airway, and naloxone may be indicated, before urine toxicology results are obtained, to help establish the diagnosis. However, if 2 doses do not reverse the child's symptoms, the diagnosis should be questioned. When repeated bolus doses of naloxone are indicated, a continuous infusion may be preferable.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".