Assessment of the palatability of vehicles for activated charcoal in pediatric volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the palatability of 4 common flavoring vehicles (water, chocolate milk [CM], orange juice [OJ], and cola) combined with activated charcoal (AC) in pediatric volunteers. DESIGN: A single-blind taste test of 4 different vehicles (water, OJ, a cola drink, and CM) was conducted in healthy volunteer children. Each child tasted 1.25 mL of Charcodote (0.2g/mL) mixed with 1.25 mL of each vehicle. SETTING: Palatability testing was conducted at the office of 1 of the authors. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty children (16 male, 14 female), aged 6.5 +/- 1.4 years (range 5-9 years). OUTCOME MEASURES: After each test dose, each child rated its taste on a modified 10 cm visual analog scale incorporating a facial-hedonic scale. Each child was also asked for his/her overall preference. RESULTS: Taste scores (cm) were as follows: water 5.6 +/- 1.8, OJ 5.4 +/- 1.0, cola 7.6 +/- 0.7, and CM 5.6 +/- 0.8. There was a significant difference in the taste scores between the cola drink (P = 0.01) and the other 3 vehicles. The cola drink was also selected as the most preferred vehicle by 50% of the children as compared with 19.2% for CM and 15.4% for OJ. In contrast, water was selected as the least preferred vehicle by 36.4% of children versus 31.8% for CM and 27.3% for OJ. Only 4 children (15.4%) stated that water was their preferred vehicle, and only 1 child (4.5%) stated that cola drink was the least preferred drink. CONCLUSIONS: Children rate the palatability higher and prefer charcoal given with a cola drink rather than with water. OJ and CM do not seem to improve the acceptability of charcoal.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".