MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130689116 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v57i2.485

Rectal Administration of Carbamazepine Suspension

2004· article· en· W2130689116 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
John Robert Manderville, James R.P. Godin, Kathryn Slayter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbamazepineRectal administrationSuppositoryMedicineAnticonvulsantPhenytoinPhenobarbitalAnesthesiaRoute of administrationEpilepsyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Clinicians sometimes face a situation in which a patient requires anticonvulsant medication but is unable to take medication orally. The parenteral route may be a suitable alternative for the delivery of many medications, but may not be appropriate in other cases, for example, because of lack of IV access or patient discomfort. Furthermore, not all anticonvulsant medications are available in parenteral form. The rectal route has been used for interim or long-term administration of anticonvulsants such as diazepam,1 valproate,2,3 phenobarbital,4 carbamazepine,5-9 and (with less success) phenytoin.10-12 The clinical usefulness and bioavailability of rectally administered carbamazepine (in suspension, suppository, or gel form) has been previously described.5-9 However, very little, if any, information has been published regarding the rectal use of the commercially available Tegretol suspension, which has been available on the Canadian market since 1995. This case report describes the successful use of Tegretol suspension, administered rectally in a patient with an uncontrolled seizure disorder.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207