Gastrointestinal Decontamination for Enteric-Coated Aspirin Overdose: What to Do Depends on Who You Ask
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Overdoses with enteric-coated preparation are common. The optimal means by which to limit drug absorption in such cases is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To describe the recommendations for gastrointestinal decontamination issued by North American poison control centers for a hypothetical patient, (an adult male with normal vital signs), presenting 1 hour after ingesting 500 mg/kg of enteric-coated aspirin. DESIGN: Telephone survey of 76 poison control centers in North America. Seven toxicologists who contributed to the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology/European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists position statements on gastrointestinal decontamination were also surveyed for informal comparison. RESULTS: Most poison control centers (99%) and all of the toxicologists (100%) participated in the survey. Four centers (5 %) recommended syrup of ipecac and 38 (51%) recommended gastric lavage, compared with 0% and 0% of toxicologists, respectively. Seventy-three centers (97%) recommended at least one dose of activated charcoal, compared with 6 toxicologists (86%). Twenty-one poison centers (28%) recommended whole-bowel irrigation, compared with 3 toxicologists (43%). A total of 36 different courses of action were suggested by respondents at the poison centers. Some of these recommendations were potentially harmful. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variability exists in the recommendations of North American poison control centers for the gastrointestinal decontamination of patients with large, acute overdoses of enteric-coated aspirin.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".