MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124384934 · doi:10.1345/aph.1c045

Cardiotoxicity following Bupropion Overdose

2002· review· en· W2124384934 on OpenAlexaff
Deon Druteika

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPoisoning and overdose treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver Hospital and Health Sciences CentreUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBupropionCardiotoxicityVentricular tachycardiaAnesthesiaDrug overdoseTachycardiaIngestionQT intervalPoison controlEmergency medicineToxicityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether bupropion overdose has been associated with cardiovascular toxicity. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966-January 2002), EMBASE (1980-January 2002), Current Contents (January 2002), and PubMed (January 2002) databases for English-language human reports. Search terms included bupropion, overdose (drug), intoxication, poisoning, and acute ingestion. DATA SYNTHESIS: Articles describing toxicity following bupropion overdose were evaluated independently by both authors to identify cases of cardiotoxicity. RESULTS: Thirteen articles describing bupropion overdose in 116 patients were identified. Only 3 patients exhibited cardiotoxicity following acute ingestion; 2 of these patients also ingested other medications. All 3 patients experienced tachycardia and conduction delays (widened QRS complex and/or prolonged QTc interval), but none of these delays progressed to a life-threatening arrhythmia. All patients recovered, with resolution of cardiotoxicity within 2-4 days following ingestion. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that all patients with an overdose of bupropion should have an electrocardiogram performed on admission and should be monitored for the development of conduction delays and/or life-threatening arrhythmias.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicPoisoning and overdose treatmentsFrench-language works237,207