Comparative pharmacokinetics of two intravenous dosage rates of tiludronate in healthy adult horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plasma and urine pharmacokinetics of tiludronate administered once daily as an intravenous bolus of 0.1 mg/kg for ten consecutive days (group 1, n=6) was compared to a single slow infusion of 1 mg/kg (group 2, n=6) in healthy adult horses. Plasma samples were collected at regular intervals for a period of 16 and 7 days in groups 1 and 2 respectively. Continuous urine collection for determination of cumulative urinary excretion of tiludronate was performed during 16 and 7 days in groups 1 and 2 respectively, and over 24-hour periods every 10 days until 60 days after the last tiludronate administration in both groups. Tiludronate concentrations were obtained in all plasma and urine samples using HPLC with UV detection. Plasma pharmacokinetic parameters were determined using a noncompartmental approach. Group 1 mean (± SD) AUCss was 3.76 (±0.698) mg.h.L-1 and group 2 mean (± SD) AUCtot was 39.07 (±3.699) mg.h.L-1. Mean (± SD) clearance (Cl) was 0.027 (±0.0042) and 0.026 (±0.0022) L.h-1.kg-1 in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Neither the dose corrected AUC (p=0.724) nor the Cl (p=0.528) were statistically different between groups. Relative plasma bioavailability (infusion versus bolus) was 103%. Cumulative urine tiludronic acid excretion could not be compared between groups due to analytical limitations (LOQ of 0.025 mg.L-1), which led to numerous missing data particularly in group 1, and an inability to conduct appropriate statistical and pharmacokinetic analyses. In conclusion, both dosage rates of tiludronate were considered bioequivalent with regards to plasma pharmacokinetics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".