Monitoring of Serum Prolactin in Pediatric Patients with Cystic Fibrosis Who Are Receiving Domperidone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since 2003, it has been routine practice at Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia to monitor serum levels of prolactin in pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis who are receiving domperidone. Although a pharmacologic relationship between domperidone and prolactin has been documented in the literature, there is no information about routine monitoring of prolactin, and guidance on interpretation of prolactin values is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To characterize how prolactin levels were being used in monitoring patients with cystic fibrosis who were receiving domperidone therapy at this institution, to evaluate the need for this practice, and to formulate recommendations accordingly. METHODS: A chart review was conducted for pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis who had been receiving domperidone therapy and whose serum prolactin levels had been monitored between June 1, 2001, and October 1, 2005. RESULTS: A total of 219 samples had been drawn, from 49 patients, for determination of prolactin level. Of these, 100 (45.7%) were above the normal range. Of the values above the normal range, 86 (86%) led to no dosage adjustment of domperidone and 14 (14%) led to either a decrease in dose or discontinuation of therapy. None of the elevated prolactin levels were associated with supratherapeutic doses of domperidone. CONCLUSION: The role of routine monitoring of prolactin in this patient population requires further study. In particular, more information is needed about prolactin levels in pediatric patients and the relationship of prolactin level to domperidone dose.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".