The effectiveness of octreotide at different doses for sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia following overdose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of octreotide at different doses in reducing the hypoglycemic attacks and the need for dextrose in treatment of refractory and recurrence hypoglycemia related to the toxicity of sulfonylurea. In the study, 40 New Zealand type of rabbits were used weighing between 2,500 and 3,000 g. The rabbits were randomly divided into four groups consisting of 10 animals. All the animals were given gliclazide 100 mg orally. For the treatment of hypoglycemic attacks in Group I, only 15 cm 50% dextrose (7.5 g) intravenously (i.v.) was used; in Group II, Group III and Group IV octreotide 25 μg, 50 μg and 100 μg single doses were used subcutaneously, respectively. Octreotide was given in Groups II and III and Group IV at the eighth hour (when hypoglycemic attacks onset). Groups II, III and IV were given an additional 15 cm 50% dextrose (7.5 g) i.v. infusion for each hypoglycemic attack developed. Following the toxic dose, animals were given the amount of dextrose used before and after octreotide administration and the number of hypoglycemic attacks were recorded. There was a significant difference between Groups I, II, and IV in the number of hypoglycemic attacks and the number of dextrose requirement between 9 and 24 hours ( P = 0.001). Groups receiving octreotide showed less hypoglycemic attacks and dextrose requirements than controls. Our experience suggests that octreotide may be used to reduce the number of refractory and recurrence hypoglycemic attacks developing due to overdose of sulfonylurea; large prospective studies would be needed to validate these findings.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".