MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137092669 · doi:10.1345/aph.1e392

Coadministration of Gatifloxacin and Multivitamin Preparation Containing Minerals: Potential Treatment Failure in an Elderly Patient

2004· article· en· W2137092669 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Mallet, Allen Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicMagnesium in Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGatifloxacinMultivitaminMedicinePharmacologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineVitaminMicrobiologyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of probable treatment failure in a patient receiving gatifloxacin and a multivitamin preparation containing minerals. CASE SUMMARY: A 77-year-old white woman was prescribed gatifloxacin for hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia. She was also receiving calcium carbonate 500 mg twice daily and a multivitamin preparation containing minerals once a day. Three days after gatifloxacin was started, the patient was still febrile, coughing, and not responding clinically. It was noted that nurses were administering the gatifloxacin tablet at the same time as the multivitamin tablet. The time of administration for gatifloxacin was changed to 6 hours after the patient received her multivitamin preparation. Two days later, she clinically improved. DISCUSSION: Studies have shown that the bioavailability of gatifloxacin is decreased with concurrent administration of antacids containing aluminum or magnesium; dietary supplements containing zinc, magnesium, and iron; multivitamin preparations containing minerals; and sucralfate. An objective causality assessment revealed that the adverse drug effect was probable. CONCLUSIONS: This case illustrates the need to recognize this potential interaction and to know how to avoid possible treatment failure.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.350 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicMagnesium in Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207