Should We be Worried About QTc Prolongation Using Citalopram? A Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Summarize available information regarding clinical impact of citalopram on the QTc interval. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases using the MeSH term "long QT syndrome" and key word "citalopram" on July 11, 2014. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were evaluated with 4 included in this review. Studies were excluded if they reported acute overdoses of citalopram or did not report on patient-specific risk factors for long QT syndrome (eg, hypokalemia, bradycardia, and increased age). The majority of the available data is derived from case reports. A number of confounders complicate the determination of a causal link between QTc prolongation and citalopram. Of the 4 studies included for review, none identified significant QTc prolongation in patients taking citalopram 20 to 60 mg daily without the patients having one or more patient-specific risk factors for prolonged QTc. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between citalopram 20 to 60 mg orally daily and increased risk of TdP. Further research is required to determine the clinical impact and association between citalopram 20 to 60 mg daily and QTc prolongation.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it