P.040 Efficacy and safety of periodic albumin infusions in refractory postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) causes excessive heart rate and orthostatic intolerance on standing. About 25% patients have refractory POTS. Saline infusions reduce improve quality of life in such patients. Intravenous albumin expands circulatory volume by increasing plasma oncotic pressure. Efficacy of albumin infusions in POTS has not been studied. Methods: To assess the efficacy of albumin infusions in refractory POTS we treated patients with weekly or biweekly intravenous infusions of either 5% albumin in normal saline (n=16) or normal saline alone (n=7) in this open label comparative study. Most patients had failed multiple treatments. Serial clinical evaluations with individual symptom scores were the primary outcome measure of efficacy. Results: Mean follow up was 2 years (range 4 weeks - 5 years). 14/16 patients on albumin and 4/7 patients on saline infusions improved. Significantly more patients (7 vs. 1) on albumin showed marked improvement from baseline with more prominent reduction in orthostatic heart rate (mean reduction 19 vs. 14 beats minute). Albumin was well tolerated. More patients on saline (3/7 vs. 2/16) discontinued infusions due to lack of efficacy. Some patients required a permanent venous catheter. Conclusions: Intravenous albumin infusions are well tolerated and more effective than normal saline in refractory POTS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".