MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161405350 · doi:10.1177/1074248410367792

Clinical Pharmacology of Dronedarone: Implications for the Therapy of Atrial Fibrillation

2010· article· en· W2161405350 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Dorian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDronedaroneMedicineCYP3A4AmiodaronePharmacologyAtrial fibrillationRenal functionDigoxinPharmacokineticsInternal medicineBioavailabilityCardiologyHeart failureCytochrome P450Metabolism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dronedarone, a recently approved antiarrhythmic agent, is a chemical analog of amiodarone. It has an approximately 15% bioavailability, with plasma concentrations markedly increasing after a high-fat meal; it is recommended to be taken with food. The primary metabolic clearance pathway for dronedarone is via the hepatic enzyme system (primarily cytochrome P450 3A4 [CYP3A4]); the half-life of dronedarone is 27 to 31 hours. Strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, are associated with a marked increase in dronedarone maximum concentration and are thus contraindicated; inducers of CYP3A4 will conversely decrease dronedarone exposure. Dronedarone is a substrate for P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and will lead to an increase in concentration of P-gp substrates such as digoxin. Dronedarone will cause a small increase in creatinine concentrations, without a change in glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Gender, renal dysfunction, weight, and age have little effect on the pharmacokinetics of dronedarone, and dose adjustment for these variables is not required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and TherapeuticsSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207