MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084753468 · doi:10.1592/phco.2005.25.8.1095

<i>N</i> ‐acetylcysteine for Prevention of Radiographic Contrast Material–Induced Nephropathy: Is the Intravenous Route Best?

2005· review· en· W2084753468 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Shalansky, Thanh Vu, Gordon E. Pate, Adeera Levin, Karin H. Humphries, John G. Webb

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcetylcysteineContrast-induced nephropathyMedicineContrast (vision)NephropathyIntravenous contrastRadiographyNuclear medicineUrologyRadiologyComputer scienceChemistryComputed tomographyEndocrinologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Use of oral N-acetylcysteine for preventing radiographic contrast material-induced nephropathy (RCIN) has become widespread, despite conflicting results from clinical trials and meta-analyses. The variability in study results may reflect differences in baseline risks in study patients, hydration regimens, choice of contrast agent, definition of RCIN, and the oral dosage formulation of N-acetylcysteine used. Injectable N-acetylcysteine recently has become available in the United States. Although oral N-acetylcysteine regimens are typically administered during a 48-hour period, more rapid intravenous administration could offer an important advantage for urgent procedures such as coronary angiography. However, the three published studies in which intravenous N-acetylcysteine protocols were used have produced divergent results, likely because of substantially different dosage regimens. With few intravenous studies available, clinicians may look to more broadly studied oral regimens to estimate equivalent intravenous dosages. In the oral studies, however, a wide range of formulations were used, and the bioavailability of each product was uncertain. In addition, the intravenous route circumvents first-pass metabolism, resulting in less glutathione production, perhaps compromising the antioxidant effects of N-acetylcysteine administration. Overall, little evidence exists that any studied N-acetylcysteine protocol improves clinical outcomes in terms of reducing length of hospital stay, need for dialysis, or mortality. Furthermore, N-acetylcysteine may directly affect serum creatinine level, which all clinical trials to date have used as a primary outcome measure. If oral or intravenous N-acetylcysteine is used with the intention of preventing RCIN, more established preventive measures should not be overlooked, including adequate hydration with isotonic saline, avoidance of potentially nephrotoxic drugs, and use of iso-osmolar radiographic contrast media.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug TherapySame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207