Methotrimeprazine for the management of End-Of-Life Symptoms in Infants and Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This retrospective chart review assessed the efficacy, dose, and safety of methotrimeprazine in palliating end-of-life symptoms in children and infants. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 18 hospitalized pediatric patients who were treated with methotrimeprazine in their last two weeks of life. Data collected included age, diagnosis, symptoms, methotrimeprazine dose, route, efficacy, and any documented adverse effects. RESULTS: Patients' ages ranged from 16 days to 17 years. Underlying conditions included malignancies, trauma, and various neurodegenerative and congenital diseases. All patients (n = 18) were treated for symptoms of agitation, delirium, or restlessness. Most patients also experienced respiratory secretions/congestion (n = 15), pain (n = 13), and/ or dyspnea (n = 9). Less common symptoms included nausea/emesis (n = 5) and spasticity (n = 1). Methotrimeprazine dosages ranged from 0.02 mg/kg/dose to 0.5 mg/kg/dose. Routes of administration included intravenous (n = 13), oral/gastrostomy tube (n = 6), or subcutaneous (n = 4). Sedation (n = 6) was the only documented adverse effect, although when agitation was present, this was potentially an intended and perceived-to-be-beneficial effect. CONCLUSION: Methotrimeprazine, an old drug with diverse receptor activity and multiple routes of administration, appears to be an effective tool in treating complicated end-of-life symptoms in children and infants. This study provides a foundation for analysis with prospective and comparative trials, which may further quantify its benefit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".