Loperamide toxicity: recommendations for patient monitoring and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Who: This position statement is a collaborative effort by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology (AACT) and the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) and has been endorsed by the American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT). The position statement describes loperamide misuse, proposed mechanisms of toxicity, adverse clinical effects, and recommendations for the acute monitoring and management of patients with loperamide toxicity.Why: Use of high-dose loperamide for its euphoric effects and to self-treat opioid use disorder (in place of evidence-based therapies, like buprenorphine or methadone), is increasing. Despite reports in the medical literature and lay press, many remain unaware of high-dose loperamide use and how to manage patients with loperamide-associated toxicities.Target audience: Providers in Emergency Medicine; Prehospital; Intensive Care; Internal Medicine; Primary Care; Gastroenterology; Addiction Medicine; Pharmacy
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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".