Reduced Acetazolamide Dosing in Countering Altitude Illness: A Comparison of 62.5 vs 125 mg (the RADICAL Trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: North American guidelines propose 125 mg acetazolamide twice daily as the recommended prophylactic dose to prevent acute mountain sickness (AMS). To our knowledge, a dose lower than 125 mg twice daily has not been studied. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial of trekkers to Everest Base Camp in Nepal. Participants received the reduced dose of 62.5 mg twice daily or the standard dose of 125 mg twice daily. Primary outcome was incidence of AMS, and secondary outcomes were severity of AMS and side effects in each group. RESULTS: Seventy-three participants had sufficient data to be included in the analysis. Overall incidence of AMS was 21 of 38 (55.3%) in reduced-dose and 21 of 35 (60.0%) in standard-dose recipients. The daily incidence rate of AMS was 6.7% (95% CI 2.5-10.9) for each individual in the reduced-dose group and 8.9% (95% CI 4.5-13.3) in the standard-dose group. Overall severity of participants' Lake Louise Score was 1.014 in the reduced-dose group and 0.966 in the standard-dose group (95% CI 0.885-1.144). Side effects were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The reduced dose of acetazolamide at 62.5 mg twice daily was noninferior to the currently recommended dose of 125 mg twice daily for the prevention of AMS. Low incidence of AMS in the study population may have limited the ability to differentiate the treatment effects. Further research with more participants with greater rates of AMS would further elucidate this reduced dosage for preventing altitude illness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".