A Phase I, Two-center Study of the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Dexmedetomidine in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate dexmedetomidine in children, the authors performed an open-label study of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of dexmedetomidine. METHODS: Thirty-six children were assigned to three groups; 24 received dexmedetomidine and 12 received no drug. Three doses of dexmedetomidine, 2, 4, and 6 microg x kg x h, were infused for 10 min. Cardiorespiratory responses and sedation were recorded for 24 h. Plasma concentrations of dexmedetomidine were collected for 24 h and analyzed. Pharmacokinetic variables were determined using nonlinear mixed effects modeling (NONMEM program). Cardiorespiratory responses were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-six children completed the study. There was an apparent difference in the pharmacokinetics between Canadian and South African children. The derived volumes and clearances in the Canadian children were V1 = 0.81 l/kg, V2 = 1.0 l/kg, Cl1 (systemic clearance) = 0.013 l x kg x min, Cl2 = 0.030 l x kg x min. The intersubject variabilities for V1, V2, and Cl1 were 45%, 38%, and 22%, respectively. Plasma concentrations in South African children were 29% less than in Canadian children. The volumes and clearances in the South African children were 29% larger. The terminal half-life was 110 min (1.8 h). Median absolute prediction error for the two-compartment mammillary model was 18%. Heart rate and systolic blood pressure decreased with time and with increasing doses of dexmedetomidine. Respiratory rate and oxygen saturation (in air) were maintained. Sedation was transient. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetics of dexmedetomidine in children are predictable with a terminal half-life of 1.8 h. Hemodynamic responses decreased with increasing doses of dexmedetomidine. Respiratory responses were maintained, whereas sedation was transient.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".