Systematic review protocol to determine the most effective pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of acute methamphetamine toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study describes the protocol for a systematic review. The systematic review will address experiences of managing methamphetamine intoxication, specifically violence and agitation related to intoxication, in the emergency department (ED). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study uses the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system to guide the methods in this section. The primary objective of the review is to identify experimental studies assessing the effectiveness of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies to manage acute methamphetamine intoxication in patients presenting violently in the ED. Our secondary objectives will be to assess the impact of specific strategies on the time it takes to achieve de-escalation and/or sedation, the length of stay in the ED, frequency of admission, mortality and provider satisfaction with the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board REB21-1387. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at healthcare conferences in Canada. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol is registered through the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (identification number: CRD42020157938) and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extensions for systematic review protocols.
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 | 0.102 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.113 | 0.017 |
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".