A Comprehensive Review on the Predictive Performance of the Sheiner-Tozer and Derivative Equations for the Correction of Phenytoin Concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".