Enrofloxacin and marbofloxacin in horses: comparison of pharmacokinetic parameters, use of urinary and metabolite data to estimate first‐pass effect and absorbed fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enrofloxacin and marbofloxacin are two veterinary fluoroquinolones used to treat severe bacterial infections in horses. A repeated measures study has been designed to compare their pharmacokinetic parameters, to investigate their bioavailability and to estimate their absorbed fraction and first-pass effect by using plasma, urinary and metabolite data collected from five healthy mares. Clearance and V(d(ss)) were greater for enrofloxacin (mean +/- SD = 6.34 +/- 1.5 mL/min/kg and 2.32 +/- 0.32 L/kg, respectively) than for marbofloxacin (4.62 +/- 0.67 mL/min/kg and 1.6 +/- 0.25 L/kg, respectively). Variance of the AUC(0-inf) of marbofloxacin was lower than that for enrofloxacin, with, respectively, a CV = 15% and 26% intravenously and a CV = 31% and 55% after oral administration. Mean oral bioavailability was not significantly different between marbofloxacin (59%) and enrofloxacin (55%). The mean percentage of the dose eliminated unchanged in urine was significantly higher for marbofloxacin (39.7%) than that for enrofloxacin (3.4%). Absorbed fraction and first-pass effect were only determinable for enrofloxacin, whereas the percentage of the dose absorbed in the portal circulation was estimated to be 78% and the fraction not extracted during the first pass through the liver was 65%. Consequently, the moderate observed bioavailability of enrofloxacin appears to be mainly caused by hepatic first-pass effect.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".