Targeting misuse of 2‐amino‐<i>N</i>‐ethyl‐1‐phenylbutane in urine samples: <i>in vitro–in vivo</i> correlation of metabolic profiles and development of LC‐TOF‐MS method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A phenyethylamine derivative, 2-amino-N-ethyl-1-phenylbutane (2-AEPB), has recently been detected in doping control and drugs-of-abuse samples, and identified as a non-labelled ingredient in a dietary supplement. To facilitate efficient control of this substance we have studied the in vitro metabolic behaviour of 2-AEPB with human liver preparation, compared these results with in vivo pathways in human, and finally propose an analytical strategy to target the potential misuse of 2-AEPB for toxicological, forensic and doping control purposes. The major in vitro formed metabolites originated from desethylation (M1) and monohydroxylation (M2). A minor metabolite with hydroxylation/N-oxidation was also observed (M3). In vitro-in vivo correlation was studied in an excretion study with a single, oral dose of 2-AEPB-containing supplement. An unmodified substance was the most abundant target compound and detected until the last point of sample collection (72 h), and the detection of M1 (40 h) and M2 (27 h) demonstrated good correlation to in vitro results. In the study with authentic cases (n = 6), 2-AEPB and M1 were mainly found in free urinary fraction, whereas higher inter-individual variability was observed for M2. It was predominantly conjugated and already within this limited number of cases, the ratio between glucuronide- and sulpho-conjugated fractions varied significantly. As a conclusion, hydrolysis is not mandatory in the routine sample preparation, and as the separation can be based on either gas chromatography or liquid chromatography, this study verifies that routine mass spectrometric detection methods targeted to amphetamine derivatives can be easily extended to control the misuse of 2-AEPB.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".