Safety of levocetirizine treatment in young atopic children: An 18‐month study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are more than 40 H(1)-antihistamines available worldwide. Most of these medications have never been optimally studied in prospective, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials in children. The aim was to perform a long-term study of levocetirizine safety in young atopic children. In the randomized, double-masked Early Prevention of Asthma in Atopic Children Study, 510 atopic children who were age 12-24 months at entry received either levocetirizine 0.125 mg/kg or placebo twice daily for 18 months. Safety was assessed by: reporting of adverse events, numbers of children discontinuing the study because of adverse events, height and body mass measurements, assessment of developmental milestones, and hematology and biochemistry tests. The population evaluated for safety consisted of 255 children given levocetirizine and 255 children given placebo. The treatment groups were similar demographically, and with regard to number of children with: one or more adverse events (levocetirizine, 96.9%; placebo, 95.7%); serious adverse events (levocetirizine, 12.2%; placebo, 14.5%); medication-attributed adverse events (levocetirizine, 5.1%; placebo, 6.3%); and adverse events that led to permanent discontinuation of study medication (levocetirizine, 2.0%; placebo, 1.2%). The most frequent adverse events related to: upper respiratory tract infections, transient gastroenteritis symptoms, or exacerbations of allergic diseases. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups in height, mass, attainment of developmental milestones, and hematology and biochemistry tests. The long-term safety of levocetirizine has been confirmed in young atopic children.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".