Comparative Pharmacokinetic of Three Sulfadiazine Suspensions by Oral Administration in Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chemotherapeutics, sulfadiazine (SDA) and trimethoprim (TMP), are extensively used in a variety of animal species. In this study, a pharmacokinetic analysis was performed to compare the bioequivalence of a combined SDA and TMP product against existing licensed SDA and TMP formulations in broiler chickens. Three groups of 15 birds were administered a single dose of either the test formulation or a reference oral suspension. The plasma concentration of SDA and TMP were determined by reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and the maximal plasma concentration (Cmax), area under the curve (AUC), the peak time (Tmax), mean residence time (MRT) and elimination half-life (T1/2), were calculated for SDA. The combined formulation I and II reference suspension exhibited almost identical concentration-time curves, and ANOVA analyses of the pharmacokinetic parameters identified no significant differences between the reference preparations and the test one. Furthermore the AUC and Cmax values of the SDA active ingredient were not significantly different. The I formulation was bioequivalent with both II and III (80-125% and 70–143%, respectively, at the 90% confidence interval). In conclusion, the combined SDA and TMP product was bioequivalent with both existing commercially available SDA suspensions and can be used interchangeably in veterinary medical practice.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".