MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367668169 · doi:10.1080/15563650.2023.2196372

Expanding the evidence for managing metformin poisoning to support decision-making

2023· review· en· W4367668169 on OpenAlexaff
Darren M. Roberts, Marc Ghannoum

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Toxicology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetforminLactic acidosisExtracorporealWorkgroupIntensive care medicineRenal replacement therapyRetrospective cohort studyIntensive care unitHemofiltrationHemoperfusionHemodialysisInternal medicineSurgeryInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Metformin-associated lactic acidosis is a well-described and commonly encountered condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Patients with metformin-associated lactic acidosis are frequently managed in the intensive care unit with supportive care, including volume resuscitation and consideration of an extracorporeal treatment to correct metabolic acidemia and remove metformin and lactate. EXTRACORPOREAL TREATMENTS IN POISONING WORKGROUP: The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup published evidence-based consensus recommendations in 2015 regarding the use of extracorporeal treatment in metformin toxicity. These recommendations list both clinical and biochemical indications, and they outline the rationale and evidence supporting each recommendation. NEW RESEARCH SINCE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE PUBLISHED: Subsequent publications have provided new information regarding metformin-associated lactic acidosis and its treatment. A retrospective study showed that patients who did not meet the Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup criteria for initiation of an extracorporeal treatment had a 100% survival. In patients who met the criteria, survival was approximately 75%; only 66% of these patients received an extracorporeal treatment, and this treatment did not appear to impact survival. Two other retrospective studies in patients diagnosed with metformin-associated lactic acidosis noted that extracorporeal treatments did not improve survival. However, those who received an extracorporeal treatment were more severely ill, potentially supporting a benefit from this intervention. A systematic review of patients receiving continuous kidney replacement therapy identified an overall survival that was higher than the overall survival in patients included in the Workgroup publication. This led the authors to suggest that intermittent hemodialysis may not be the preferred treatment for metformin toxicity. However, a closer look at the Workgroup data identified improved survival with each decade since the initial reports in the 1970s. Furthermore, there are multiple reports of persistent metformin-associated lactic acidosis that did not improve with standard continuous kidney replacement therapy, prompting an increase in the dosage of the extracorporeal treatment. The data supporting these observations are largely derived from retrospective studies, which have inherent biases, so prospective studies are required. PRESCRIBING EXTRACORPOREAL TREATMENTS FOR PATIENTS WITH METFORMIN POISONING: Case-based decision-making is always necessary, but in general, we continue to follow the Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup criteria because a convincing reason for changing these has not yet been presented. This includes the use of intermittent hemodialysis where possible, particularly in cases of severe poisoning. For patients with less severe poisoning or when intermittent hemodialysis is not readily available, it is reasonable to trial continuous modalities with careful observation for deterioration.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.436
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ToxicologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207