Safety of drug use in patients with a primary mitochondrial disease: An international Delphi‐based consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical guidance is often sought when prescribing drugs for patients with primary mitochondrial disease. Theoretical considerations concerning drug safety in patients with mitochondrial disease may lead to unnecessary withholding of a drug in a situation of clinical need. The aim of this study was to develop consensus on safe medication use in patients with a primary mitochondrial disease. A panel of 16 experts in mitochondrial medicine, pharmacology, and basic science from six different countries was established. A modified Delphi technique was used to allow the panellists to consider draft recommendations anonymously in two Delphi rounds with predetermined levels of agreement. This process was supported by a review of the available literature and a consensus conference that included the panellists and representatives of patient advocacy groups. A high level of consensus was reached regarding the safety of all 46 reviewed drugs, with the knowledge that the risk of adverse events is influenced both by individual patient risk factors and choice of drug or drug class. This paper details the consensus guidelines of an expert panel and provides an important update of previously established guidelines in safe medication use in patients with primary mitochondrial disease. Specific drugs, drug groups, and clinical or genetic conditions are described separately as they require special attention. It is important to emphasise that consensus-based information is useful to provide guidance, but that decisions related to drug prescribing should always be tailored to the specific needs and risks of each individual patient. We aim to present what is current knowledge and plan to update this regularly both to include new drugs and to review those currently included.
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 | 0.182 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".