Comparative Pharmacokinetics of a Single Oral Dose of Two Formulations of Amlodipine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amlodipine, a long acting dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist, is prescribed worldwide for the treatment of angina and hypertension. The objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics and to establish bioequivalence of two formulations of amlodipine. The study was performed at the Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Hospital de Clínicas, Medical School of Buenos Aires University. This randomized, single blind, two-period, two-sequence, comparative crossover study was conducted in 24 Caucasian healthy volunteers. A single oral 10 mg dose of amlodipine besylate (CAS 111470-99-6) test formulation and reference formulation were administered to the volunteers separated by a 3-week washout period in a crossover manner. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected over a period of 144 h after drug administration. Amlodipine was measured in plasma samples using a validated HPLC method with LC-MS-MS detection. A non-compartmental method was used for pharmacokinetic analysis. Bioequivalence between test and reference amlodipine samples were demonstrated as the calculated 90% confidence interval for the corresponding ratios of log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC(t), AUC(infinity) and C(max)) fell within the 80-125% range, the predetermined criterion for pharmacokinetic equivalence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".