MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2995355912 · doi:10.1177/0706743719892709

Protocol for Clozapine Rechallenge in a Case of Clozapine-Induced Myocarditis

2019· article· en· W2995355912 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Geetha Shivakumar, Naveen Thomas, Miranda Sollychin, Anna Takács, S. Kolamunna, P. Melgar, Fiona Connally, Christopher Neil, Chad Bousman, Mahesh Jayaram, Christos Pantelis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClozapineMyocarditisMedicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Adverse effectInternal medicineCardiologyAnesthesiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Protocol for clozapine rechallenge in patients with a history of clozapine-induced myocarditis. METHOD: Clozapine-related cardiovascular adverse effects including myocarditis and cardiomyopathy have limited its widespread use in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Here, we present a case of clozapine-induced myocarditis and successful cautious rechallenge. Ms. AA, a young female patient with severe psychosis developed myocarditis during her initial clozapine titration phase, which was thus discontinued. Subsequent response to other medications was poor, and she remained significantly disabled. We reviewed blood-based biomarkers identified during the emergence of her index episode of myocarditis and developed a successful clozapine rechallenge protocol, based on careful monitoring of changes in these indices and a very slow clozapine re-titration. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: This protocol may have utility in the management of patients with a history of clozapine-induced myocarditis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→