Erythromycin and related macrolides for gastroparesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of erythromycin (including derivatives) for symptomatic control and gastric emptying in adults with gastroparesis. Primary objective To compare erythromycin or other macrolides (e.g. clarithromycin, roxithromycin) or derivatives (e.g. mitemcinal) versus control (no treatment; placebo; other prokinetics such as metoclopramide, domperidone or tegaserod; antiemetics including phenothiazines, antihistamines or serotonin 5‐HT receptor antagonists; or low‐dose tricyclic antidepressants for symptomatic control of gastroparesis (nausea, vomiting, early satiety and abdominal pain as a composite outcome) in adults with gastroparesis. Secondary objectives To compare the safety (i.e. the occurrence of any grade 3 or 4 adverse event as defined by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) program of the National Institute of Health (NIH), USA; NIAID 2003) of erythromycin (or other macrolide or its derivative) versus control (no treatment, placebo, prokinetic, antiemetic or low‐dose tricyclic antidepressant) in adults with gastroparesis. To compare erythromycin (or other macrolide or its derivatives) versus control (no treatment, placebo, prokinetic, antiemetic or low‐dose tricyclic antidepressant) for gastric emptying in adults with gastroparesis. To conduct a subgroup analysis within each comparison according to: type of control intervention (no treatment, placebo, prokinetic, antiemetic or low‐dose tricyclic antidepressant); type of etiology of gastroparesis (DM, connective tissue diseases, neurologic diseases, autoimmune diseases, iatrogenic (drug‐related, e.g. calcium channel blockers, opiates, lithium) diseases or idiopathic diseases.
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 | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.117 | 0.010 |
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".