MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097636574 · doi:10.1080/00498250110091767

LC-MS-MS analysis of hydromorphone and hydromorphone metabolites with application to a pharmacokinetic study in the male Sprague-Dawley rat

2002· article· en· W2097636574 on OpenAlexaff
Ming Zheng, Keith M. McErlane, May Ong

Bibliographic record

VenueXenobiotica · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicAlkaloids: synthesis and pharmacology
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydromorphoneChemistryChromatographyPharmacokineticsGlucuronideAnalyteSolid phase extractionDetection limitHigh-performance liquid chromatographyExtraction (chemistry)MetabolitePharmacologyOpioidBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. A high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS) assay was developed for the analysis of hydromorphone and its metabolites, namely dihydromorphine, dihydroisomorphine, hydromorphone-3-glucuronide, dihydromorphine-3-glucuronide and dihydroisomorphine-3-glucuronide, in rat plasma samples. 2. Analytes were extracted by solid-phase extraction using C2 cartridges. The extraction recoveries were > 76% for all analytes. Both intra- and interassay variabilities were < or = 12%. Using a plasma sample size of 100 microl, the limits of detection were 7.0 nmol(-1) (2.0 ng ml(-1)) for hydromorphone, dihydromorphine and dihydroisomorphine and 11 nmol l(-1) (5.0 ng ml l(-1)) for hydrormorphone-3-glucuronide, dihydromorphine-3-glucuronide and dihydroisomorhine-3-glucuronide at a signal-to-noise ratio = 3. 3. The present assay was applied to a pharmacokinetic study in rat after intraperitoneal administration of hydromorphone.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueXenobioticaSame topicAlkaloids: synthesis and pharmacologyFrench-language works237,207