How Long After Drug Ingestion Is Activated Charcoal Still Effective?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The recent American Academy of Clinical Toxicology/European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists position statement on activated charcoal stated "there are insufficient data to support or exclude its use after 1 hour of ingestion.'' The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of activated charcoal administered 1, 2, and 3 hours after drug ingestion. METHODS: This was a human volunteer, randomized crossover study. Ten volunteers ingested 4 g of acetaminophen on four occasions at least 1 week apart. One ingestion served as a control and the other three as experimental ingestions with charcoal being administered at 1, 2, and 3 hours after acetaminophen dosing. Eight blood specimens were obtained over the initial 8 hours for serum acetaminophen concentrations that were used for calculation of routine pharmacokinetic parameters. Repeated measures of ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic parameters for acetaminophen in our volunteers were consistent with literature values. The mean area under the curve (AUC+/-SD) for the control and the 1-, 2-, and 3-hour groups were 221 +/- 54, 154 +/- 71, 206 +/- 67 and 204 +/- 58 mg/L/h, respectively. The 1-hour group was the only one differing from control (p < 0.01). The decrease of bioavailability at 1 hour was 30.3%, which is similar to previous studies. CONCLUSION: Our data do not support the administration of activated charcoal as a gastrointestinal decontamination strategy beyond 1 hour after drug overdose.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".