Carbamazepine poisoning treated by multiple extracorporeal treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Hemoperfusion (HP) or dialysis is occasionally used following carbamazepine (CBZ) toxicity but it remains unclear which is the most efficient modality. We describe a case of severe CBZ intoxication treated with different extracorporeal modalities during which CBZ toxicokinetics were compared. CASE DETAILS: A 58-year-old man was transferred to our facility 24 hours after ingesting over 14 g of sustained-release CBZ. Because of worsening neurological condition requiring mechanical ventilation and CBZ levels reaching 47.6 μg/mL, he underwent three intermittent hemodialysis (IHD), two continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH), and one IHD with HP (IHD-HP). IHD and CVVH removed 1.73 g of carbamazepine over 43 hours. Mean apparent half-life was 8.8 hours during IHD 49.1 hours during CVVH, and 5.1 hours during IHD-HP, while measured endogenous half-life after extracorporeal therapies was 81.4 hours. Mean CBZ clearances were 106.2 mL/min during IHD and 21.2 mL/ min during CVVH. His neurological status improved during extracorporeal elimination, and he was discharged without sequela after 16 days. Treatments were well tolerated aside from thrombocytopenia during IHDHP. DISCUSSION: All extracorporeal treatments facilitated CBZ elimination, although CVVH was significantly less efficient than IHD and IHD-HP. IHD-HP may be better than IHD alone but must be weighed against its risks. IHD appears sufficient to eliminate CBZ and may need to be repeated or prolonged according to the clinical context if CBZ absorption is delayed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".