MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172214328 · doi:10.1080/026990501458399

Methotrimeprazine in the treatment of agitation in acquired brain injury patients

2001· article· en· W2172214328 on OpenAlexaff
O Maryniak, Rahul Manchanda, Asif Velani

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcquired brain injuryGlasgow Coma ScaleAmnesiaMedicineEtiologyDemographicsRehabilitationAdverse effectAnesthesiaPediatricsPsychiatryPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical management of the agitation associated with acquired brain injury (ABI) has been proble matic. At least 12 distinct drugs are currently recommended in the medical literature. In recent years, on the ABI in-patient rehabilitation unit, methotrimeprazine (MTZ) has come to be the preferred drug and is used routinely for effective treatment of agitation. The objective of this paper is to describe the use and safety of MTZ in the rehabilitation of ABI patients. A retrospective chart review of all patients discharged from the ABI unit over a course of 2 years was conducted. In addition to demographics such a aetiology of ABI, sex, age, length of stay, Glasgow Coma Scale, length of posttraumatic amnesia and others, a detailed analysis was made of the multidisciplinary progress notes to determine the daily agitation status and the daily use of psychotropic medication. All notes on side effects and adverse reactions were carefully documeneted. 120 first admission recent ABI patients were discharged in the 2 year study period. Of these, 69 (57%) had some level of agitation and 56 (48%) were treated with MTZ, in doses of 2-50 mg up to four times daily. Agitation was controlled in most cases. In only two cases were significant side effects noted. While MTZ has been used as a safe and effective neuroleptic in psychiatry for over 40 years, this is the first report of its use in treating agitation in ABI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations36
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207