Review PYRIDINIUM OXIMES: RATIONALE FOR THEIR SELECTION AS CAUSAL ANTIDOTES AGAINST ORGANOPHOSPHATE POISONINGS AND CURRENT SOLUTIONS FOR AUTO-INJECTORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to provide the auto-injector with the best and most potent acetylcholinesterase reactivator, the Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) received in the 1990s a core funding from the federal government’s CBRN research and Technology Initiative (CRTI). Its ultimate result should be three products: (1) 3-in-1 auto-injector (atropine, HI-6 dimethanesulphonate and avizafone, as anticonvulsant), (2) 2-in-1 auto-injector (atropine and HI-6 dimethanesulphonate) and (3) HI-6 dimethanesulphonate in a vial for administration by the medically trained personnel. Previous experimental and clinical experience suggests that, among the oximes mentioned, only trimedoxime and obidoxime can be used for acetylcholinesterase reactivation and antidotal protection against most of the organophosphorus insecticides. The search for an “omnipotent ” oxime, effective in reactivation of AChE inhibited with both nerve agents and organophosphorus insecticides, is still ongoing. KEY WORDS: acetylcholinesterase, nerve agents, organophosphorus compounds, reactivation Atropine seemed to be the only antidote available for the treatment of poisoning with organophosphorus compounds (OPC) until 1951, when Jandorf made
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".