Compatibility of Y-Site Injection of Meropenem Trihydrate With 101 Other Injectable Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the study was to establish the compatibility of injectable meropenem with 101 other drugs during Y-site administration. Methods: Meropenem (50 mg/mL, 10 mL) was combined with 101 undiluted injectable drugs (10 mL each) at room temperature. Each preparation was performed twice. The first sample underwent a visual evaluation and a particle count test by light obstruction immediately after mixing. These tests were repeated 4 hours after mixing using the second preparation. Incompatibility was defined as precipitation or other visual change (turbidity, crystal formation, gas formation, color change) or failure to meet United States Pharmacopeia (USP) <788> 1.B specifications at any time point. Results: A total of 83 of the 101 injectable drugs tested with meropenem were found to be compatible both visually and using the USP <788> particle counter. The gross incompatibility of the other 17 drugs was determined by visual observation. One mixture complied with the specifications, but showed an increase of temperature upon mixing and was removed from the study. Conclusion: Of the 101 drugs tested, 83 were found to be compatible while the remaining 17 were incompatible. One drug was removed from the study as its compatibility was unclear.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".