The Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Zoledronic Acid in Cancer Patients with Varying Degrees of Renal Function
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An open-label pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of zoledronic acid (Zometa) was performed in 19 cancer patients with bone metastases and known, varying levels of renal function. Patients were stratified according to creatinine clearance (CLcr) into different groups of normal (CLcr > 80 mL/min), mildly (CLcr = 50-80 mL/min), or moderately/severely impaired (CLcr = 10-50 mL/min) renal function. Three intravenous infusions of 4 mg zoledronic acid were administered at 1-month intervals between doses. Plasma concentrations and amounts excreted in urine were determined in all subjects, and 4 patients were administered 14C-labeled zoledronic acid to assess excretion and distribution of drug in whole blood. In general, the drug was well tolerated by the patients. Mean area under the plasma concentration versus time curve and mean concentration immediately after cessation of drug infusion were lower, and mean amounts excreted in urine over 24 hours from start of infusion were higher in normal subjects than in those with impaired renal function (36% vs. 28% of excreted dose), although the differences were not significant. Furthermore, with repeated doses, there was no evidence of drug accumulation in plasma or changes in drug exposure in any of the groups, nor was there any evidence of changes in renal function status. Serum levels of markers of bone resorption (serum C-telopeptide and N-telopeptide) were noticeably reduced after each dose of zoledronic acid across all three renal groups. It was concluded that in patients with mildly to moderately reduced renal function, dosage adjustment of zoledronic acid is likely not necessary.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it