Pharmacokinetics studies and toxicity profile of raltitrexed used by intraperitoneal route in normothermia in a pig model.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To define the pharmacokinetic and toxicity profile of raltitrexed administered by intraperitoneal route in a normothermic pig model. MATERIAL/METHODS: Twenty-one female pigs were divided in three groups. Under general anesthesia, pigs in groups 1 and 2 underwent laparotomy with resection of a small hepatic wedge, bowel anastomosis and portal and systemic vein catheterization. This was followed by an intraperitioneal delivery of raltitrexed: a dose of 1 mg was given to group 1 pigs, whereas group 2 received 2 mg. Serial sampling of portal blood, systemic blood and peritoneal fluid was then undertaken in both groups for pharmacokinetics studies. Pigs were followed daily for a period of 10 days after surgery with recordings of signs of toxicity. On day 10, an exploratory laparotomy was undertaken on each pig in order to assess peritoneal toxicity after which they were euthanized. Pigs in group 3 were used for bioavailability evaluation. RESULTS: Three deaths were recorded within 24 hours of surgery; a technical problem was identified in all cases and no deaths were the results of raltitrexed toxicity. A peritoneo-plasma gradient of 100:1 was obtained. Cmax in plasma were of 28 ng/ml and 54 ng/ml for group 1 and 2, respectively. Tmax were 180 min for both groups. AUCplasmatic was double in the 2 mg group compared to the 1 mg group. CONCLUSIONS: Raltitrexed administered by IP route in pigs is non-toxic. Pharmacologically, there are few interindividual variations and the small first-past effect did not significantly alter the high peritoneo-plasmatic gradient
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".