Comparative oxidative metabolic profiles of clomipramine in cats, rats and dogs: preliminary results from an <i>in vitro</i> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this in vitro study were to describe cytochrome-dependent metabolism of clomipramine in canine and feline microsomes, compare metabolic profiles between cats, rats and dogs, and investigate a potential gender-related difference in metabolic activity between male and female cats. Pooled liver microsomes were incubated with clomipramine, where species and gender-specific reactions were initiated by the addition of a nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate regenerating system and quenched with methanol at 0, 5, 15, 30, 45 and 60 min, and 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240 and 360 min respectively. Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry was used to measure clomipramine and its metabolites. Preliminary results showed that cat microsomes biotransformed clomipramine slower and less efficiently than rat and dog microsomes. Moreover, gender differences in metabolic profiles suggested that male cat microsomes may be less efficient demethylators and hydroxylators than female cat microsomes. As gender metabolic differences may carry clinical significance for this antidepressant, further studies are 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".