Population <scp>PK</scp> modelling and simulation based on fluoxetine and norfluoxetine concentrations in milk: a milk concentration‐based prediction model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Population pharmacokinetic (pop PK) modelling can be used for PK assessment of drugs in breast milk. However, complex mechanistic modelling of a parent and an active metabolite using both blood and milk samples is challenging. We aimed to develop a simple predictive pop PK model for milk concentration-time profiles of a parent and a metabolite, using data on fluoxetine (FX) and its active metabolite, norfluoxetine (NFX), in milk. METHODS: Using a previously published data set of drug concentrations in milk from 25 women treated with FX, a pop PK model predictive of milk concentration-time profiles of FX and NFX was developed. Simulation was performed with the model to generate FX and NFX concentration-time profiles in milk of 1000 mothers. This milk concentration-based pop PK model was compared with the previously validated plasma/milk concentration-based pop PK model of FX. RESULTS: Milk FX and NFX concentration-time profiles were described reasonably well by a one compartment model with a FX-to-NFX conversion coefficient. Median values of the simulated relative infant dose on a weight basis (sRID: weight-adjusted daily doses of FX and NFX through breastmilk to the infant, expressed as a fraction of therapeutic FX daily dose per body weight) were 0.028 for FX and 0.029 for NFX. The FX sRID estimates were consistent with those of the plasma/milk-based pop PK model. CONCLUSIONS: A predictive pop PK model based on only milk concentrations can be developed for simultaneous estimation of milk concentration-time profiles of a parent (FX) and an active metabolite (NFX).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".