Safety of Oseltamivir Compared With the Adamantanes in Children Less Than 12 Months of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When oseltamivir is administered in extremely high doses (500-1000 mg/kg) to young juvenile rats, central nervous system toxicity and death occurred in some animals. Mortality was not observed in older juvenile rats, suggesting a possible relationship between neurotoxicity and an immature blood-brain barrier. To assess potential neurologic adverse effects of oseltamivir use in infants, a retrospective chart review was performed in infants less than 12 months of age who received oseltamivir, amantadine, or rimantadine. METHODS: The primary objective was to describe the frequency of neurologic adverse events among children less than 12 months of age who received oseltamivir compared with those receiving adamantanes. Medical record databases, emergency department databases, and/or pharmacy records at 15 medical centers were searched to identify patients. RESULTS: Of the 180 infants identified as having received antiviral therapy, 115 (64%) received oseltamivir, 37 (20%) received amantadine, and 28 (16%) received rimantadine. The median dose of oseltamivir was 2.0 mg/kg/dose in 3- to 5-month-old and 2.2 mg/kg/dose in 9- to 12-month-old infants. The maximum dose administered was 7.0 mg/kg/dose. There were no statistically significant differences in the occurrence of adverse neurologic events during therapy among subjects treated with oseltamivir versus those treated with the adamantanes (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest report to date of oseltamivir use in children less than 12 months of age. Neurologic events were not more common with use of oseltamivir compared with that of the adamantanes. Dosing of oseltamivir was variable, illustrating the need for pharmacokinetic data in this younger population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".