Does Ketamine Have a Role in Managing Severe Exacerbation of Asthma in Adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of ketamine in management of severe exacerbation of asthma in adults. METHODS: Qualitative systematic search using MEDLINE (January 1966-September 2000), EMBASE (January 1988-September 2000), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 2, 2000). RESULTS: One prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and five case reports were retrieved. In the clinical trial, low-dosage ketamine as an adjunct to standard therapy offered no benefit in improving outcomes in nonventilated patients. In the case reports, all patients with refractory severe exacerbation of asthma requiring mechanical ventilation appeared to receive some benefit from ketamine, with alleviation of bronchospasm and improved oxygenation. Adverse effects included dysphoria, hallucinations, and increased pulmonary secretions. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence is available in the literature to support administration of ketamine in severe exacerbation of asthma. Although a few cases suggest possible benefit from ketamine, it should not be considered until controlled clinical trials demonstrate that benefits outweigh risks for patients for whom other standard therapies failed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".