MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106307190 · doi:10.1128/aac.01141-08

Population Pharmacokinetics of High-Dose, Prolonged-Infusion Cefepime in Adult Critically Ill Patients with Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

2009· article· en· W2106307190 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony M. Nicasio, Robert E. Ariano, Sheryl Zelenitsky, Aryun Kim, Jared L. Crandon, Joseph L. Kuti, David P. Nicolau

Bibliographic record

VenueAntimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCefepimePharmacokineticsPopulationVolume of distributionLiterElimination rate constantMedicineRenal functionConfidence intervalIntensive careUrologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineChemistryAntibioticsIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A population pharmacokinetic model of cefepime was constructed from data from adult critical care patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). A total of 32 patients treated with high-dose cefepime, 2 g every 8 h (3-h infusion) or a renal function-adjusted equivalent dose, were randomized into two groups--26 for the initial model and 6 for model validation. Serum samples of cefepime were collected at steady state. Nonparametric adaptive grid population modeling was employed using a two-compartment K(slope) pharmacokinetic model relating the elimination rate constant (K(10)) to renal function, as defined by creatinine clearance (CL(CR)), and central distribution volume (V(1)) to total body weight (TBW). The final model was described by the following equations: K(10) = 0.0027 x CL(CR) + 0.071 h(-1) and V(1) = TBW x 0.21 liter/kg. The median intercompartmental transfer constants K(12) and K(21) were 0.780 h(-1) and 0.472 h(-1), respectively. Using these median parameter estimates, the bias, precision, and coefficient of determination for the initial model were 11.3 microg/ml, 24.0 microg/ml, and 26%, respectively. The independent validation group displayed a bias, precision, and coefficient of determination of -1.64 microg/ml, 17.1 microg/ml, and 62%, respectively. Time-concentration profiles were assessed for various dosing regimens, using 5,000-patient Monte Carlo simulations. Among the regimens, the likelihoods of 2 g every 8 h (3-h infusion) achieving free drug concentrations above the MIC for 50% of the dosing interval were 91.8%, 78.1%, and 50.3% for MICs of 8, 16, and 32 microg/ml, respectively. This study provides a pharmacokinetic model capable of predicting cefepime concentrations in critically ill patients with VAP.

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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

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 head0.253
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations121
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntimicrobial Agents and ChemotherapySame topicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and EfficacyFrench-language works237,207