High-throughput Caco-2 cell permeability screening by cassette dosing and sample pooling approaches using direct injection/on-line guard cartridge extraction/tandem mass spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method for high-throughput Caco-2 permeability screening of drug candidates has been developed using thirteen generic drugs as test compounds. The high throughput was achieved by either a sample pooling or a cassette dosing approach, along with the use of a rapid, simple and sensitive direct injection/on-line guard cartridge extraction/tandem mass spectrometric assay that was also developed in this study. It was of concern that possible drug-drug interactions (e.g., inhibition of P-glycoprotein-mediated transport of a drug by another, and/or competition of the drugs for transport pathways), when the cassette dosing regimen was implemented, may give rise to inconsistent results compared with those attained by a traditional single-drug dosing approach. However, the apparent permeability coefficients of the test drugs across Caco-2 monolayers measured by the sample pooling or cassette dosing (up to five drugs co-administered in this study) strategy were in good conformity with the data obtained by single-drug dosing followed by discrete sample analysis.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".