Lactose intolerance or gastrointestinal adverse drug effect? guidance for oncology pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lactose intolerance is quite common among people world-wide. Despite this, lactose is often used as a pharmaceutical excipient due to its pharmacologically inactive nature. We reviewed the literature to determine how much lactose can typically be tolerated by patients reporting a history of lactose intolerance and measured the amount of excipient in commonly used solid oral oncology dosage forms. We determined that most patients should be able to tolerate a significantly higher amount of lactose than that found in maximum daily doses of oncology tablets and capsules, based on our literature review and the measured amount of excipient in commonly used solid oral oncology dosage forms. If patients report gastrointestinal symptoms, adverse drug reactions and medical conditions should be considered as more likely causes than lactose intolerance. We created a flow chart for pharmacists to follow when dispensing oral medications to lactose intolerant patients. This chart may assist in patient management if the lactose content of a medication is questioned or if a patient reports gastrointestinal symptoms.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".