Should We be Worried About QTc Prolongation Using Citalopram? A Review
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".