MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050349526 · doi:10.1016/s0378-4347(00)00325-x

Liquid chromatographic method for the simultaneous determination of caffeine and fourteen caffeine metabolites in urine

2000· article· en· W2050349526 on OpenAlexaff
El-khalil Bendriss, Nektaria Markoglou, Irving W. Wainer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chromatography B Biomedical Sciences and Applications · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromatographyCaffeineChemistryUrineCYP1A2Extraction (chemistry)High-performance liquid chromatographyXanthine oxidaseAcetic acidEnzymeCytochrome P450Biochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An HPLC method has been developed for the separation and the determination of caffeine and its metabolites in urine samples using a one extraction-analysis run and UV detection. The compounds were extracted by liquid-liquid extraction using chloroform-isopropylalcohol (85:15, v/v). Chromatographic separation was accomplished on an ODS analytical column with a mobile phase containing 0.05% acetic acid/methylalcohol (92.5:7.5, v/v). Compounds were monitored at 280 nm. The method was validated for the determination of AFMU, 1X, 1U, 17X and 17U caffeine metabolites required to assess the metabolic activity of the enzymes subject to in vivo caffeine testing. The validated assay was applied to urine samples from ten healthy volunteers. The method was proved to be suitable to assess simultaneously the enzymatic activity of cytochrome P450 CYP1A2 and CYP2A6, as well as N-acetyltransferase and xanthine oxidase.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chromatography B Biomedical Sciences and ApplicationsSame topicPharmacogenetics and Drug MetabolismFrench-language works237,207