Pediatric Drug‐Associated Pancreatitis Reveals Concomitant Risk Factors and Poor Reliability of Causality Scoring: Report From INSPPIRE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Drug-associated acute pancreatitis (DAP) studies typically focus on single acute pancreatitis (AP) cases. We aimed to analyze the (1) characteristics, (2) co-risk factors, and (3) reliability of the Naranjo scoring system for DAP using INSPPIRE-2 (the INternational Study group of Pediatric Pancreatitis: In search for a cuRE-2) cohort study of acute recurrent pancreatitis (ARP) and chronic pancreatitis (CP) in children. METHODS: Data were obtained from ARP group with ≥1 episode of DAP and CP group with medication exposure ± DAP. Physicians could report multiple risk factors. Pancreatitis associated with Medication (Med) (ARP+CP) was compared to Non-Medication cases, and ARP-Med vs CP-Med groups. Naranjo score was calculated for each DAP episode. RESULTS: Of 726 children, 392 had ARP and 334 had CP; 51 children (39 ARP and 12 CP) had ≥1 AP associated with a medication; 61% had ≥1 AP without concurrent medication exposure. The Med group had other risk factors present (where tested): 10 of 35 (28.6%) genetic, 1 of 48 (2.1%) autoimmune pancreatitis, 13 of 51 (25.5%) immune-mediated conditions, 11 of 50 (22.0%) obstructive/anatomic, and 28 of 51 (54.9%) systemic risk factors. In Med group, 24 of 51 (47%) had involvement of >1 medication, simultaneously or over different AP episodes. There were 20 ARP and 4 CP cases in "probable" category and 19 ARP and 7 CP in "possible" category by Naranjo scores. CONCLUSIONS: Medications were involved in 51 of 726 (7%) of ARP or CP patients in INSPPIRE-2 cohort; other pancreatitis risk factors were present in most, suggesting a potential additive role of different risks. The Naranjo scoring system failed to identify any cases as "definitive," raising questions about its reliability for DAP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".