Comparative tolerability of 2- and 15-minute intravenous infusions of pantoprazole
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The safety and tolerability of 80 mg i.v. pantoprazole administered as a 2-minute versus a 15-minute infusion were studied. METHODS: In a single-blind, randomized, multiple-dose, parallel-group study, 48 healthy participants (ages 18-45 years) were randomly assigned for treatment with 80 mg i.v. pantoprazole infused for 2 or 15 minutes once daily for seven days. A blinded evaluator assessed the injection site for phlebitis and infiltration on a 5-point scale at specified intervals. Participants completed the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and burning at baseline and at 5 minutes postinjection. RESULTS: More than 99% of the preinfusion and postinfusion infiltration scores and >95% of the phlebitis scores were rated as zero in 48 healthy participants. A total of 7 infiltration scores (1%) and 72 postinfusion phlebitis scores (5%) of greater than 0 were recorded, all of which were mild in nature. Forty-one phlebitis scores of 1 and 1 score of 2 were from 12 participants in the 2-minute group, and 20 scores of 1 and 10 scores of 2 were from 8 participants in the 15-minute group. VAS assessments showed that the perception of pain and burning was not greater in the 2-minute group. There were no significant differences in adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The safety and tolerability profiles of i.v. pantoprazole administered as a 2-minute infusion were similar to those of the 15-minute infusion. This protocol may result in the savings of staff time with no additional discomfort to the patient.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it