Studies on the pharmacokinetics of cisatracurium in anesthetized dogs:<i>in vitro–in vivo</i>correlations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cisatracurium undergoes primarily temperature and pH-dependent Hofmann elimination in humans. This study was conducted to describe the pharmacokinetics of cisatracurium in anesthetized dogs and determine whether its in vitro degradation rate in plasma is predictive of its in vivo elimination rate, as this is the case in humans. Nine dogs were anesthetized with pentobarbital and administered different bolus doses of cisatracurium in a randomized cross-over design. Arterial blood was collected at frequent intervals after each bolus injection. In vitro degradation rate (k(in vitro)) of cisatracurium was determined in each dog blank plasma. Plasma concentrations were determined by HPLC. Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed using two compartmental models assuming central or both central and peripheral elimination. Mean in vivo terminal elimination rate of cisatracurium (16.4 +/- 2.7 min) was twofold faster than mean in vitro degradation rate (32.9 +/- 3.7 min) in our dogs. Organ clearance was 6.12 +/- 1.69 mL/min.kg and accounted for 56 +/- 12% of the total body clearance. Apparent volume of distribution, an exit site-dependent parameter, averaged 212 or 184 mL/kg whether or not peripheral elimination was accounted for in the model. The in vitro rate of degradation in plasma is not of predictive value for the in vivo elimination rate of cisatracurium in anesthetized dogs. Organ clearance plays a more important role in the elimination of cisatracurium in dogs than in humans. Increased biliary excretion and/or presence of renal secretion are potential mechanisms that need to be explored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".