A multi-case report of acute renal failure in patients treated with Aggrenox.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aggrenox is used in the secondary prevention of stroke. Acute renal failure, potentially associated with Aggrenox, has been observed in several patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine if Aggrenox was associated with acute renal failure and to determine whether it was acetylsalicylic acid, dipyridamole or the combination that led to decline in renal function. METHODS: A case series of three patients suffering severe nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, renal dysfunction and clinical decline during Aggrenox therapy was examined. Serum creatinine and Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN) were measured to evaluate renal function. RESULTS: Analysis of this patient group revealed that Patient 1 experienced nausea, emesis, anorexia, diarrhea and significant clinical decline during treatment with Aggrenox. Patients 2 and 3 also presented with complaints of nausea and emesis. Lab measurements along with clinical symptoms indicated that all three patients experienced acute renal failure, having increases in serum creatinine of 186%, 144% and 249%, respectively. Symptoms and lab work returned to baseline following discontinuation of Aggrenox. CONCLUSION: It is biologically plausible that Aggrenox may contribute to renal dysfunction in patients under certain pathophysiological circumstances.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".