MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Monitoring Clozapine

2003· article· en· W2003615824 on OpenAlexaff
Randolph B. Goossen, David J. Freeman, Anne Marie Satchell, Bradley L. Urquhart

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Drug Monitoring · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVenipunctureClozapineMedicineBlood samplingTherapeutic drug monitoringWhole bloodInternal medicineAnesthesiaPharmacokineticsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this pilot study was to determine whether fingerprick blood and plasma clozapine levels were equivalent to arm venipuncture blood and plasma levels for the purpose of therapeutic monitoring. A convenient sample of 10 outpatients from the Elgin Program of Assertive Community Treatment Team (PACT) participated in the study. Blood samples were obtained simultaneously from both the arm and finger in patients at steady state to measure clozapine levels. Each site provided a blood and plasma clozapine level, and they were compared. Clozapine levels from arm and finger sites were found to be equivalent in both blood and plasma. Although plasma clozapine levels were consistently greater than those in whole blood by a mean value of 27%, the plasma therapeutic threshold level (350-400 micro g/L) was considered an adequate target for monitoring. A fingerprick blood sample of 50 micro L was sufficient to measure clozapine levels accurately at steady state. We therefore concluded that fingerprick blood testing is as effective as the traditional arm venipuncture method in obtaining accurate clozapine levels. This procedure may provide certain benefits for the seriously mentally ill.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Drug MonitoringSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207