Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Evaluation of a Gentamicin Loading Dose in Neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prospective, randomized, controlled evaluation comparing a 4-mg/kg loading dose (LD) of gentamicin to the standard regimen of 2.5 mg/kg every 12, 18 or 24 h was conducted in critically ill neonates. The objective of the study was to compare the time required to achieve a therapeutic peak serum concentration (i.e. the number of dosing intervals) and to compare the number of serum concentrations outside the therapeutic range as an indicator of potential toxicity between the treatment groups. Eighteen of 26 patients, 5 of 13 in the control group and 13 of 13 in the LD group (p = 0.012) achieved an initial peak concentration of > or = 5 micrograms/ml following the first gentamicin infusion. There were no significant differences between the control and LD group in the number of potentially toxic serum concentrations. When patients were subdivided according to gestational age (GA), patients of < or = 34 weeks had significantly lower initial peak concentrations. A LD of 4 mg/kg in neonates, particularly those of < or = 34 weeks GA, produced a therapeutic peak concentration following the initial dose. There is a minimal risk of attaining serum concentrations commonly associated with toxicity providing the dosage interval is adjusted based on serum creatinine determinations. Based on this study, infants of > 34 weeks GA generally achieve therapeutic peak concentrations after the first dose with conventional dosing; however, in younger infants an appropriate LD is required to reach therapeutic concentrations early in therapy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".