MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2587477100 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201701-0044le

Reply: Selection Bias in Study Participants with Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure

2017· letter· en· W2587477100 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Adler, Laurent Brochard

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenytoinMedicineAnticonvulsantKindlingEpilepsyAnesthesiaPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reexamined the efficacy of the clinically effective anticonvulsant drug phenytoin in the kindling model. We investigated the effects of varying doses of intravenous phenytoin on serum concentrations and on several indexes of stimulation-evoked kindled seizures. Intravenous phenytoin produced a dose-dependent increase in serum phenytoin concentration and powerfully suppressed both limbic and clonic motor seizures. Although focal afterdischarge threshold was elevated to some extent, the most profound effect of phenytoin was limitation of seizure propagation. Variable and low serum concentrations of intraperitoneal or oral phenytoin may explain previous findings that phenytoin is only partly effective or ineffective against kindled seizures. Together with previous results with other drugs, the excellent correlation among drugs effective against human and kindled seizures strengthens the validity of this model. We suggest that the efficacy of experimental anticonvulsant drugs be established in the kindling model before initiation of clinical trials for partial and secondarily generalized seizures.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0170.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicEpilepsy research and treatment→French-language works237,207→