Evaluation of the safety, pharmacodynamic, and pharmacokinetic effects following oral coadministration of immediate‐release morphine with ethanol in healthy male participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper aimed to evaluate the effects of coadministered immediate-release morphine and ethanol on safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic measures. METHODS: In the first stage of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, 16 healthy men with a history of moderate drinking received morphine 50 mg+ethanol 0.7 g/kg, morphine 50 mg+ethanol placebo, and morphine placebo+ethanol 0.7 g/kg. In the second stage, participants received either a lower (30 mg) or higher (80 mg) morphine dose (alone and in combination with ethanol) depending on their tolerability to treatments in stage 1. Safety, pharmacodynamic (including visual analog scales, pupillometry, capnography, and psychomotor and cognitive measures), and pharmacokinetic assessments were conducted. RESULTS: With the exception of one severe adverse event (AE), all others were mild or moderate in intensity. Morphine resulted in dose-related increases in AEs. When morphine was administered with ethanol, similar AEs were observed (dizziness, headache, somnolence, nausea, and vomiting), but these were sometimes more frequent compared with those observed with either drug alone. No consistent additive or interaction effects were observed on pharmacodynamic measures. Ethanol had no apparent effects on the pharmacokinetics of morphine or its metabolites. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of single doses of morphine and ethanol tested in this study did not affect the safety, pharmacodynamics, or pharmacokinetics of morphine or ethanol administered alone. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".