MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2402890847 · doi:10.1520/jfs2002121

Fatal Diphenhydramine Intoxication in Infants

2003· article· en· W2402890847 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Baker, DG Johnson, Joseph A. Levisky, William Lee Hearn, Kate Moore, Barry Levine, Scott G. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPoisoning and overdose treatments
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiphenhydramineMedicineAntihistamineAnesthesiaDiphenhydramine hydrochlorideSedativePoison controlPediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diphenhydramine is an antihistamine available in numerous over-the-counter preparations. Often used for its sedative effects in adults, it can cause paradoxical central nervous system stimulation in children, with effects ranging from excitation to seizures and death. Reports of fatal intoxications in young children are rare. We present five cases of fatal intoxication in infants 6, 8, 9, 12, and 12 weeks old. Postmortem blood diphenhydramine levels in the cases were 1.6, 1.5, 1.6, 1.1 and 1.1 mg/L, respectively. Anatomic findings in each case were normal. In one case the child's father admitted giving the infant diphenhydramine in an attempt to induce the infant to sleep; in another case, a daycare provider admitted putting diphenhydramine in a baby bottle. Two cases remain unsolved; one case remains under investigation. The postmortem drug levels in these cases are lower than seen in adult fatalities. We review the literature on diphenhydramine toxicity, particularly as it pertains to small children, and discuss the rationale for treating these cases as fatal intoxications.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 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

Citations82
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicPoisoning and overdose treatmentsFrench-language works237,207