A study of adverse drug reactions to iodinated contrast agents in tertiary care teaching hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Contrast agents have long been used for the imaging of anatomic boundaries and to explore normal and abnormal findings in X-ray based imaging technique. These agents are not completely devoid of risk. Adverse effects from administration of contrast media vary from minor physiological disturbance to rare life threatening situation.Methods: A cross-sectional retrospective observational study over one-year duration from 1st August 2015 to 31st July 2016 was conducted at radiology department of a Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Government Medical College and Teaching hospital, Rajkot, Gujarat. Adverse drug reactions were analyzed to study the nature of reactions caused by iodinated contrast agents. The temporal relationship of time of administration of contrast agents to the occurrence of adverse reaction was analyzed and classified as immediate or delayed type of reaction.Results: Out of 868 patients that were analysed 15 out of 497 male patients and 11 out of 371 female patients developed adverse reaction. Age range of patients that developed reactions was 20-55 years. Most common adverse drug reaction occurred in our study was nausea and vomiting which was treated by parenteral Ondansetron. All the reactions were found to be ‘probable’ in causality as per WHO causality assessment scale and Naranjo’s algorithm.Conclusions: Physicians performing diagnostic or therapeutic procedures with contrast agents must be aware of the risk, preventability & treatment so that reactions can be prevented. Sensitization of physicians is required to increase reporting of adverse drug reactions occurred due to radiocontrast agents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".