MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical pharmacology of the H<sub>1</sub>‐receptor antagonists cetirizine and loratadine in children

2000· article· en· W2103051694 on OpenAlexaff
F. Estelle R. Simons, Lana Johnston, Keith J. Simons

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCetirizineLoratadineMedicineOnset of actionCrossover studyPharmacologyPlaceboHistamine H1 receptorAntihistamineHydroxyzineHistamineAnesthesiaInternal medicineReceptorAntagonist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

H1-receptor antagonists are widely used in children but are not as well-studied in children as they are in adults. Our objective was to determine the onset and duration of action and the relative potency of the H1-receptor antagonists cetirizine and loratadine in children. We performed a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover, single-dose study of cetirizine and loratadine using suppression of the histamine-induced wheal and flare as the primary outcome. In 15 allergic children, mean age 9 years, compared with baseline, cetirizine (10 mg) suppressed the wheals and flares significantly from 0.25 to 24 h, achieving nearly 100% of flare suppression from 2 to 24 h, inclusive, and loratadine (10 mg) suppressed the wheals and flares significantly from 0.75 to 24 h, inclusive. Cetirizine suppressed the wheals and flares significantly more than loratadine from 0.25 to 1 h, inclusive, and at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 24 h, respectively. Placebo also suppressed the wheal and flare significantly at some assessment times. Cetirizine and loratadine both have excellent antihistaminic activity in children, with a rapid onset of action and a 24-h duration of action in this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations26
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Allergy and ImmunologySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207