Comparative Pharmacokinetics of a Single Oral Dose of Two Formulations of Amlodipine
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 it