MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094518494 · doi:10.1177/0091270003251388

Pharmacokinetics of an Immediate‐Release Oral Formulation of Fampridine (4‐Aminopyridine) in Normal Subjects and Patients with Spinal Cord Injury

2003· article· en· W2094518494 on OpenAlexaff
Keith C. Hayes, Mitchell A. Katz, John Devane, Jane Hsieh, Dalton L. Wolfe, Patrick J. Potter, Andrew R. Blight

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCmaxPharmacokinetics4-AminopyridineSpinal cord injuryHigh-performance liquid chromatographyOral administrationMedicinePlasma concentrationSpinal cordAnesthesiaChemistryPharmacologyChromatographyInternal medicinePotassium channel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plasma concentration profiles of the K+ channel-blocking compound Fampridine were obtained from (1) control subjects (n = 6) following oral administration of doses of 10, 15, 20, and 25 mg and (2) patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) (n = 11) following a single oral dose of 10 mg of an immediate-release formulation. Plasma concentrations were determined using a reversed-phase ion-pair high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) assay with ultraviolet light detection employing liquid extraction. The drug was rapidly absorbed with a tmax approximately 1 hour for both groups; tmax was independent of dose. Cmax and AUC0-infinity were linearly related to dose, and t 1/2 was 3 to 4 hours for both groups. There were no obvious differences in the (10-mg) plasma concentration profiles between control subjects and SCI patients. The drug was well tolerated, with only mild and transient side effects of light-headedness, dysesthesias, and dizziness.

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)0.000
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations75
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207