MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535061578 · doi:10.1111/pan.13020

Oral morphine dosing predictions based on single dose in healthy children undergoing surgery

2016· article· en· W2535061578 on OpenAlexafffund
Joy Dawes, Erin Cooke, Jacqueline A. Hannam, Katherine Brand, Pamela J. Winton, Ricardo Jiménez‐Méndez, Katarina Aleksa, Gillian Lauder, Bruce Carleton, Gideon Koren, Michael J. Rieder, Brian J. Anderson, Carolyne J. Montgomery

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Anesthesia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Anesthesiologists' Society
KeywordsMedicineMorphineDosingPharmacokineticsAnesthesiaBioavailabilityOpioidPharmacodynamicsAbsorption (acoustics)Enteral administrationOral administrationPharmacologySurgeryInternal medicineParenteral nutrition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Oral morphine has been proposed as an effective and safe alternative to codeine for after‐discharge pain in children following surgery but there are few data guiding an optimum safe oral dose. Aims The aim of this study was to characterize the absorption pharmacokinetics of enteral morphine in order to simulate time–concentration profiles in children given common oral morphine dose regimens. Methods Children (2–6 years, n = 34) undergoing elective surgery and requiring opioid analgesia were randomized to receive preoperative oral morphine (100 mcg·kg −1 , 200 mcg·kg −1 , 300 mcg·kg −1 ). Blood sampling for morphine assay was performed at 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 240 min. Morphine serum concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography–mass spectroscopy and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using nonlinear mixed effects models. Current data were pooled with published time–concentration profiles from children ( n = 1059, age 23 weeks postmenstrual age – 3 years) administered intravenous morphine, to determine oral bioavailability (F), absorption lag time (T LAG ), and absorption half‐time (T ABS ). These parameter estimates were used to predict concentrations in children given oral morphine (100, 200, 300, 400, 500 mcg·kg −1 ) at different dosing intervals (3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12 h). Results The oral morphine formulation had F 0.298 (CV 36.5%), T LAG 0.45 (CV 63.6%) h and T ABS 0.71 (CV 55%) h. A single‐dose morphine 100 mcg·kg −1 achieved a mean C MAX 10 mcg·l −1 . Repeat 4‐hourly dosing achieved mean steady‐state concentration 13–18 mcg·l −1 ; concentrations associated with good analgesia after intravenous administration. Serum concentration variability was large ranging from 5 to 55 mcg·l −1 at steady state. Conclusions Oral morphine 200 mcg·kg −1 then 100 mcg·kg −1 4 h or 150 mcg·kg −1 6 h achieves mean concentrations associated with analgesia. There was high serum concentration variability suggesting that respiration may be compromised in some children given these doses.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric AnesthesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207