Adverse Effects of Amantadine and Oseltamivir Used During Respiratory Outbreaks in a Center for Developmentally Disabled Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Antiviral prophylaxis is recommended for the control of institutional influenza A outbreaks. In long-term-care institutions other than nursing homes, neither the seriousness of influenza nor the risks and benefits of antiviral prophylaxis is clearly understood. We studied the severity of illness due to influenza among adults residing in a center for the developmentally disabled and assessed adverse reactions to amantadine and oseltamivir prophylaxis. METHODS: Data were collected from the charts of consenting residents. Complications of upper respiratory tract illness were recorded. Potential adverse events were documented during amantadine and oseltamivir therapy, and during a baseline period with neither medication. RESULTS: The median age of the 287 participants was 46.4 years. Only 15 (5%) were older than 65 years, and 69 (24%) had chronic underlying medical illness placing them at high risk for influenza. Of the 122 residents with an upper respiratory tract infection, 16 (13%) developed pneumonia, 12 (9.8%) were hospitalized, and 5 (4%) died. Twenty-eight (25%) of 112 residents had an adverse neurologic event while receiving amantadine prophylaxis, compared with 3 (2.7%) receiving no antiviral medication and 5 (4.5%) receiving oseltamivir (P < .001). Sixteen percent of the residents discontinued amantadine due to adverse events; in contrast, adverse events were identified in 2.9% of the residents prescribed oseltamivir, and none discontinued therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Viral respiratory tract infections are associated with a high risk of complications in this population. The rate of adverse neurologic events associated with amantadine was significantly higher than that associated with oseltamivir.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".