MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404754658 · doi:10.1159/000457568

Comparison of CNS AdverseEffects between Astemizole andChlorpheniramine in Children: ARandomized, Double-Blind Study

2017· article· en· W2404754658 on OpenAlexaffabout
A Shanon, William H. Feldman, Lewis Leikin, Robert G. Peterson, Victoria Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAstemizoleAntihistaminePediatricsAsthmaOutpatient clinicRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectMemory spanPhysical therapyAnesthesiaInternal medicineCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the central nervous system side effects of chlorpheniramine and astemizole in children. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind cross-over study. SETTING: Children were recruited from the out-patient allergy clinic and from respondents to an advertisement in a local newspaper. The study was conducted in the outpatient clinics of the ambulatory care services of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: Children 8-16 years of age, with isolated allergic rhinitis or hay fever, were eligible for the study. We excluded children with: (1) chronic conditions (specifically asthma, atopic dermatitis, learning disabilities, or current treatment with oral corticosteroid medication); (2) known allergy to the study medications; (3) recent use of any antihistamine medication. One hundred and three children entered the study and 92 completed it. INTERVENTIONS: Children were stratified by age and randomly allocated to treatment with one of the two medication sequences. Over a period of 13 weeks both groups had 1 week of baseline studies, 3 weeks of one study medication, either chlorpheniramine or astemizole, a 6-week wash-out period and then 3 weeks of the other study medication for a second treatment period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Attention span (continuous performance test), short-term auditory and visual memory (visual aural digit span test), visual memory for geometric shapes (Benton visual retention test), motor coordination and visual-motor integration (grooved pegboard test), tapping speed and fine motor coordination (finger tapping test), physical side effects (such as sleepiness and dizziness), and compliance. RESULTS: One hundred and three patients were enrolled in the study, 92 (89%) completed the study. There were no significant drug effects on the visual retention test and the continuous performance test. On the visual aural digit span test, patients treated with astemizole scored higher than at baseline. There were no clinical or statistical differences in adverse effects between the two medications or between each medication and baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The two antihistamines studied had no adverse effects on the performance of children.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Pharmacology and TherapeuticsSame topicDrug-Induced Adverse ReactionsFrench-language works237,207