MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085549679 · doi:10.1097/mjt.0b013e318293b0e8

Use of Naloxone for Clonidine Intoxication in the Pediatric Age Group

2013· review· en· W2085549679 on OpenAlexaff
Syed A. Ahmad, Dennis Scolnik, Vala Snehal, Miguel Glatstein

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Therapeutics · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPoisoning and overdose treatments
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClonidineMedicineLethargy(+)-NaloxoneAnesthesiaAtropineComa (optics)IntubationOpioidInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence of clonidine overdose is increasing worldwide, possibly because of the broadening of indications to include several psychiatric conditions, yet there is a paucity of new information regarding treatment options for clonidine toxicity. We report a case in whom naloxone was used and discuss the literature on this topic. A 2-year-old male infant presented with a history of lethargy. Vital signs were notable for hypotension, pupillary constriction, and hypotonia. The Glasgow Coma score progressively worsened, precipitating intubation. Naloxone was given without response. Urine toxicology revealed high concentrations of clonidine but no opiates. Rapid boluses of isotonic crystalloids and intravenous atropine 0.02 mg/kg were administered with good response. The patient was subsequently discharged home with pediatric and community services follow-up. The use of naloxone in the treatment of clonidine intoxication is unclear, and empirical use does not seem to be justified.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TherapeuticsSame topicPoisoning and overdose treatmentsFrench-language works237,207