MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134759021 · doi:10.1086/425007

Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial of Intravenous Ribavirin for the Treatment of Hantavirus Cardiopulmonary Syndrome in North America

2004· article· en· W2134759021 on OpenAlexaff
Grégory Mertz, Lil Miedzinski, D. Goade, Andrew T. Pavia, Brian Hjelle, Clark Hansbarger, Howard Levy, Frederick Koster, K. Baum, A. Lindemulder, W. Wang, Laura Riser, Harold Fernandez, Richard J. Whitley

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Vectors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsMedicineRibavirinPlaceboInternal medicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationAnesthesiaImmunologyVirusResuscitationHepatitis C virusPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND. Ribavirin is active in vitro against hantaviruses, but the findings of an open trial of the use of intravenous ribavirin for the treatment of hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome (HCPS) were inconclusive. METHODS: Subjects with suspected HCPS in the prodrome or cardiopulmonary phase but without shock were eligible for randomization to receive either intravenous ribavirin (33 mg/kg [<or=2 g], followed by 16 mg/kg [<or=1 g] given every 6 h for 4 days and by 8 mg/kg [<or=.5 g] given every 8 h for 3 days) or placebo (administered for 7 days or until the initial Sin Nombre virus antibody test result was confirmed to be negative). The primary outcome was survival at day 28 of the study without the need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). RESULTS: Thirty-six subjects were enrolled in the trial from March 1996 through July 2001, at which point the study was terminated prematurely because of both the slow rate of accrual of subjects and the findings of a futility analysis. Of the 36 subjects enrolled, 23 (all of whom were enrolled during the cardiopulmonary stage of HCPS) had HCPS confirmed by serologic testing. The severity of illness at entry into the study was similar among the 10 subjects with HCPS who received ribavirin and the 13 subjects with HCPS who received placebo. The proportion of subjects who survived and who did not require ECMO was similar among ribavirin recipients and placebo recipients (70% vs. 62%, respectively); 2 ribavirin recipients and 2 placebo recipients died, including 3 of 7 subjects treated with ECMO. The frequency of adverse events, including anemia, was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of accrual of subjects in the present study was inadequate to clearly assess the safety or efficacy of ribavirin in the treatment of HCPS. However, ribavirin was well tolerated, and the lack of trends supporting the use of intravenous ribavirin suggests that it is probably ineffective in the treatment of HCPS in the cardiopulmonary stage.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations188
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicViral Infections and VectorsFrench-language works237,207