MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943573025 · doi:10.11575/prism/36418

Incidence and Risk Factors for Hyponatremia in Patients Newly Prescribed Citalopram

2019· dissertation· en· W2943573025 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Andrea Christine Shysh

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectrolyte and hormonal disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCitalopramHyponatremiaIncidence (geometry)MedicinePediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryAntidepressantAnxietyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyponatremia is a common and under-recognized adverse drug reaction of citalopram. This study aims to determine the incidence of hyponatremia and to identify risk factors in a large, population-based cohort initiating new prescriptions for citalopram. Following approval from the ethics review board, data were obtained from Alberta Information Network databases to identify patients with new citalopram prescriptions from 2010-2017, inclusive. Hyponatremia was defined as serum sodium level <135 mmol/L. Associations were determined by performing Cox regression with time-varying covariate analysis, with the development of hyponatremia as the dependent variable. This is the first large-scale, population-based study to explore risk factors, based solely on laboratory serum data, for the development of hyponatremia in patients initiating citalopram therapy. We report a 16.7% incidence of hyponatremia after starting citalopram treatment and significant risk factors include lower baseline sodium, concurrent thiazide diuretic use, older age, and male sex.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicElectrolyte and hormonal disordersFrench-language works237,207