Improving the Palatability of Activated Charcoal in Pediatric Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the taste preference and ease of swallowing of activated charcoal among healthy teenagers when mixed separately with 3 different additives: chocolate milk, Coca-Cola, and water. METHODS: Healthy volunteers between 14 to 19 years of age were selected for the study. Five grams of activated charcoal (25 mL of 0.2 g/mL of Charcodote [Pharma Science, Montreal, Canada]) was mixed with 25 mL of chocolate milk, Coca-Cola, or water individually to make up 50 mL. The volunteers drank the 3 cups of the charcoal-additive mixture separately and then rated taste and ease of swallowing on a 10-cm visual analogue scale. The subjects then indicated their preferred charcoal-additive mixture if he/she had to drink 9 more portions of charcoal (this would estimate the dose of charcoal for a 50-kg child). RESULTS: A total of 44 subjects were recruited (25 boys and 19 girls). The mean scores for taste preference for chocolate milk, Coca-Cola, and water mixtures of charcoal were 5.5, 6.3, and 2.0, respectively, on a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Thus, subjects preferred the taste of charcoal mixed with chocolate milk or Coca-Cola over charcoal mixed with water (P = 0.0003 for both comparisons). The subjects did not show a statistically significant difference for ease of swallowing between the 3 charcoal-additive mixtures. Overall, 48% preferred the chocolate milk mixture, 45% preferred the Coca-Cola mixture, and 7% preferred charcoal mixed with water. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy teenaged subjects identified that activated charcoal (Charcodote) mixed with chocolate milk or Coca-Cola (in a 1:1 ratio) improved taste but had no significant effect on improving ease of swallowing. Overall, the addition of chocolate milk or coke improves the palatability of charcoal and is favored over charcoal mixed with water alone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".