MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096481644 · doi:10.1081/ddc-100107252

Differences in the Method by Which Plasma Is Separated from Whole Blood Influences Amphotericin B Plasma Recovery and Distribution Following Amphotericin B Lipid Complex Incubation Within Whole Blood

2001· article· en· W2096481644 on OpenAlexaff
Manisha Ramaswamy, Kishor M. Wasan

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug Development and Industrial Pharmacy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhole bloodAmphotericin BChemistryBlood plasmaChromatographyPharmacokineticsIncubationPharmacologyMedicineSurgeryBiochemistryAntifungal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A previous investigation suggested that the use of plasma as the biological fluid for measurement of amphotericin B (AmpB) concentrations greatly underestimates the concentrations of AmpB in the total blood circulation following amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) administration to humans. The purpose of this study was to determine if differences in the method used to obtain plasma from whole blood influences the percentage of AmpB recovered in plasma following ABLC incubation in whole blood. ABLC (5 microg AmpB/ml; peak blood concentration observed in rabbits following intravenous bolus of ABLC at a dose of 1 mg/kg) was incubated in whole blood for 5 min at 25 degrees C. These conditions were used to mimic the sample retrieval conditions used when blood is obtained from animals and human patients. Following incubation, plasma was obtained from whole blood using five different methods: (A) Whole blood was centrifuged for 5 min at 23 degrees C, and the plasma was separated; (B) whole blood was stored at 4 degrees C for 18 h, and the plasma was separated by gravity; (C) whole blood was stored at 23 degrees C for 18h, and the plasma was separated by gravity; (D) whole blood was stored at 37 degrees C for 18 h in a water bath, and the plasma was separated by gravity; and (E) whole blood was stored at 30 degrees C for 18 h in a water bath, and the plasma was separated by gravity. All samples were protectedfrom light throughout the duration of the experiment. AmpB concentration in each plasma sample was determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using an external calibration curve. The whole blood:plasma Amp B concentration ratio and the percentage of AmpB partitioned into plasma following incubation of ABLC in whole blood for each plasma separation procedure was as follows: (A) 6.5:1 blood:plasma AmpB concentration ratio, 15.4% +/- 1.6% AmpB in plasma; (B) 2.98:1 blood:plasma AmpB concentration ratio, 33.6% +/- 7.7% AmpB in plasma; (C) 1.5:1 blood:plasma AmpB concentration ratio, 67.6% +/- 10.3% AmpB in plasma; (D) 1.5:1 blood : plasma concentration ratio, 68.1% +/- 1.1% AmpB in plasma; and (E) 1.2 : 1 blood:plasma AmpB concentration ratio; 83.4% +/- 5.5% AmpB in plasma. These findings suggest that when measurement of AmpB in plasma is required following ABLC administration, incubation of whole blood at 30 degrees C for 18 h appears to be the most effective method.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug Development and Industrial PharmacySame topicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and EfficacyFrench-language works237,207