MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271487728 · doi:10.1177/1060028016628166

A Comprehensive Review on the Predictive Performance of the Sheiner-Tozer and Derivative Equations for the Correction of Phenytoin Concentrations

2016· review· en· W2271487728 on OpenAlexaff
Tony K. L. Kiang, Mary H. H. Ensom

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhenytoinDerivative (finance)PharmacologyEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: In settings where free phenytoin concentrations are not available, the Sheiner-Tozer equation-Corrected total phenytoin concentration = Observed total phenytoin concentration/[(0.2 × Albumin) + 0.1]; phenytoin in µg/mL, albumin in g/dL-and its derivative equations are commonly used to correct for altered phenytoin binding to albumin. The objective of this article was to provide a comprehensive and updated review on the predictive performance of these equations in various patient populations. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar was conducted using combinations of the following terms: Sheiner-Tozer, Winter-Tozer, phenytoin, predictive equation, precision, bias, free fraction. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All English-language articles up to November 2015 (excluding abstracts) were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: This review shows the Sheiner-Tozer equation to be biased and imprecise in various critical care, head trauma, and general neurology patient populations. Factors contributing to bias and imprecision include the following: albumin concentration, free phenytoin assay temperature, experimental conditions (eg, timing of concentration sampling, steady-state dosing conditions), renal function, age, concomitant medications, and patient type. Although derivative equations using varying albumin coefficients have improved accuracy (without much improvement in precision) in intensive care and elderly patients, these equations still require further validation. CONCLUSIONS: Further experiments are also needed to yield derivative equations with good predictive performance in all populations as well as to validate the equations' impact on actual patient efficacy and toxicity outcomes. More complex, multivariate predictive equations may be required to capture all variables that can potentially affect phenytoin pharmacokinetics and clinical therapeutic outcomes.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.008
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207