MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pharmacokinetics of oral rufinamide in dogs

2011· article· en· W1597227591 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Wright, A. V. CHEN, Stephanie E. Martinez, Neal M. Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical Synthesis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacokineticsAdverse effectPharmacologyOral administrationMedicinePlasma concentration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to determine the pharmacokinetic properties and short-term adverse effect profile of single-dose oral rufinamide in healthy dogs. Six healthy adult dogs were included in the study. The pharmacokinetics of rufinamide were calculated following administration of a single mean oral dose of 20.0 mg/kg (range 18.6-20.8 mg/kg). Plasma rufinamide concentrations were determined using high-performance liquid chromatography, and pharmacokinetic data were analyzed using commercial software. No adverse effects were observed. The mean terminal half-life was 9.86 ± 4.77 h. The mean maximum plasma concentration was 19.6 ± 5.8 μg/mL, and the mean time to maximum plasma concentration was 9.33 ± 4.68 h. Mean clearance was 1.45 ± 0.70 L/h. The area under the curve (to infinity) was 411 ± 176 μg · h/mL. Results of this study suggest that rufinamide given orally at 20 mg/kg every 12 h in healthy dogs should result in a plasma concentration and half-life sufficient to achieve the therapeutic level extrapolated from humans without short-term adverse effects. Further investigation into the efficacy and long-term safety of rufinamide in the treatment of canine epilepsy is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Pharmacology and TherapeuticsSame topicChemical Synthesis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207