MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2233655745

A CASE REPORT: DRUG INTERACTION BETWEEN LINEZOLID AND DOPAMINE

2015· article· en· W2233655745 on OpenAlexaff
Vidya Alex Smitha S, Suja Abraham, Sreeja PA

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsASTER
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinezolidDopamineMedicineAnesthesiaTyramineBlood pressurePharmacologyInternal medicineStaphylococcus aureusBiologyVancomycin
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Linezolid is a weak, non-selective inhibitor of monoamine oxidase (MAO). It can inhibit the breakdown of the tyramine by MAO in the gut and can also potentiate the effect of tyramine at nerve endings, thereby causing an increase in blood pressure. We encountered a neonate who developed acute hypertensive episode after simultaneous administration of dopamine and linezolid. A 25 w preterm neonate was admitted in NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit) with complaints of Patent Ductus Arteriosus and respiratory infection. Linezolid infusion 6.5 mg every 8 h over 30 min (7 am, 3pm, 11 pm) was added after confirmation of gram-positive cocci (Staphylococcus epidermis) growth. Inj. Dopamine 20 mcg/kg/min was started for derangement in blood pressure 52/28 mm Hg (Mean blood pressure 43) at 5 pm. The baby developed acute hypertensive episode at 5.30 pm for which dopamine was withdrawn immediately. The half-life of Linezolid is 5.6 h in preterm baby, and that of Dopamine is 2 min. Since the probability of peak concentration for both the administered drugs was around the same time period, the baby developed acute hypertensive episode. So the combination of Linezolid with Dopamine should be avoided if possible or the dosage interval has to be extended to minimize the adverse reaction.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesFrench-language works237,207