Influence of concomitant quinidine administration on dextromethorphan disposition in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High doses of dextromethorphan (DM) have been clinically investigated for the treatment of multiple neuronal disorders including neuropathic pain. Several authors have suggested the concomitant administration of DM and a CYP2D6 reversible inhibitor in order to enhance the exposure of DM and limit the exposure to total dextrorphan (DX). The present study proposes to determine whether or not a single dose of quinidine is sufficient to enhance the plasma concentrations of DM in rats and keep those of DX at a minimal level. Oral doses of DM (50 mg/kg) were administered with increasing dose levels of quinidine (0, 2, 20, and 50 mg/kg) to male Sprague-Dawley rats and blood samples were collected over 24 h. Plasma concentrations of DM and total DX were determined using ESI-LC/MS/MS. Quinidine coadministration resulted in a more than twofold increase in the area under the curve of DM with an ED(50) of approximately 2 mg/kg whereas those of total DX were only increased by 21%. These results support the working hypothesis that a single dose of quinidine may enhance the plasma concentrations of DM relative to those of total DX and may therefore improve the treatment of neuropathic pain.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".