Management and Appropriate Use of Diazoxide in Infants and Children with Hyperinsulinism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of hypoglycemia and the use of diazoxide have risen in the last decade. Diazoxide is the only Food and Drug Agency-approved pharmacologic treatment for neonatal hypoglycemia caused by hyperinsulinism (HI). Recent publications have highlighted that diazoxide has serious adverse effects (AEs) such as pulmonary hypertension (2-3%) and neutropenia (15%). Despite its increasing use, there is little information regarding dosing of diazoxide and/or monitoring for AEs. METHODS: We convened a working group of pediatric endocrinologists who were members of the Drug and Therapeutics Committee of the Pediatric Endocrine Society (PES) to review the available literature. Our committee sent a survey to its PES members regarding the use of diazoxide in their endocrine practices. Our review of the results concluded that there was substantial heterogeneity in usage and monitoring for AEs for diazoxide among pediatric endocrinologists. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our extensive literature review and on the lack of consensus regarding use of diazoxide noted in our PES survey, our group graded the evidence using the framework of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group, and has proposed expert consensus practice guidelines for the appropriate use of diazoxide in infants and children with HI. We summarized the information on AEs reported to date and have provided practical ideas for dosing and monitoring for AEs in infants treated with diazoxide.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".