Failure of Cetirizine and Fexofenadine to Prevent Motion Sickness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of 2 second-generation antihistamines in modulating motion sickness induced by Coriolis vestibular cross-coupling stimulation. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study was conducted in 18 healthy adults. Subjects were exposed to Coriolis vestibular cross-coupling in the laboratory using the Staircase Profile Test for baseline susceptibility and when under the influence of cetizirine, fexofenadine, and placebo. Subjective evaluation of sickness symptoms was based on the Graybiel diagnostic criteria of acute motion sickness, Golding's scale, and the Coriolis Sickness Susceptibility Index. RESULTS: Repeated measures ANOVA and Friedman nonparametric ANOVA of rank tests revealed that there were significant differences in symptom assessments based on Graybiel's diagnostic criteria (p < or = 0.001), subjective symptoms of motion sickness (p < or = 0.001), and state-anxiety (p < or = 0.001) before and after motion exposure. However, there are no significant differences between the baseline susceptibility to motion sickness and treatment with placebo, cetirizine, or fexofenadine. CONCLUSIONS: The failure of the second-generation antihistamines cetirizine and fexofenadine to prevent motion sickness suggests that the therapeutic actions of this class of antihistamines against motion sickness may be mediated through central versus peripheral receptors. The sedative effect of other antihistamines, such as hydroxyzine, may play a more significant role in alleviating motion sickness than previously thought.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".