Transfer of Glyburide and Glipizide Into Breast Milk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if glyburide and glipizide are excreted into breast milk and if breast-feeding from women taking these drugs causes infant hypoglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied eight women who had received a single oral dose of 5 or 10 mg glyburide. Drug concentrations were measured in maternal blood and milk for 8 h after the dose. In a separate study, five women were given a daily dosage (5 mg/day) of glyburide or glipizide, starting on the first postpartum day. Maternal blood and milk drug concentrations and infant blood glucose were measured 5-16 days after delivery. RESULTS: In the single-dose glyburide study, the mean maximum theoretical infant dose (MTID) as a percent of the weight-adjusted maternal dose (WAMD) was <1.5 and <0.7% for the 5- and 10-mg doses, respectively. For the five women taking daily dosages, the mean MTID as a percent of the WAMD was <28% for glyburide and <27% for glipizide. The high estimates were due to the insensitivity of the assay. Neither glyburide nor glipizide were detected in breast milk in either study and blood glucose was normal in the three infants (one glyburide and two glipizide) who were wholly breast-fed when the drug concentrations were at steady state. CONCLUSIONS: Neither glyburide nor glipizide were detected in breast milk, and hypoglycemia was not observed in the three nursing infants. Both agents, at the doses tested, appear to be compatible with breast-feeding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".