MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity: do time and frequency of administration matter?

2001· review· en· W1991119253 on OpenAlex
Denis Beauchamp, Gaston Labrecque

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNephrotoxicityMedicineAminoglycosideToxicityDosingGentamicinPharmacologyAntibioticsIntensive care medicineInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aminoglycosides remains the mainstay in the treatment of gram-negative infections despite their potential oto-and nephrotoxicity although alternatives with equal or better efficacy are available. Several approaches were investigated to decrease aminoglycosides nephrotoxicity. Among them, only the once-daily dosing of aminoglycosides has been brought to the clinic and physicians are now increasingly adopting this approach to reduce the toxicity of these agents. The incidence of aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity can be further reduced in view of the recent data on the circadian variations of their nephrotoxicity. In fact, it has been clearly demonstrated in both experimental animals and humans that the toxicity is maximal when the drug is injected during the rest period compared with the activity period. Thus, injecting aminoglycosides once-daily at the time of the lowest toxicity is actually the most interesting and clinically applicable approach to reduce aminoglycosides toxicity.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.319 · 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