Safety and Pharmacokinetics of P792, a New Blood-Pool Agent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of P792, a new macromolecular blood-pool agent for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in nonpatient volunteers. METHODS: This was a single blind, placebo-controlled, ascending-dose study in 32 healthy male volunteers, randomized to receive a single intravenous dose of P792 (0.0065, 0.013, 0.026, and 0.039 mmol/kg). The safety controls consisted of complete pre- and postdose physical examinations, measurement of vital signs, clinical laboratory investigations, and monitoring of adverse events (up to 22 days after injection). For pharmacokinetic analysis, the determination of P792 was performed using the ICP-MS technique for blood and urine samples up to 22 days. RESULTS: No serious adverse events occurred during the study. There were no clinically significant changes in vital signs, or clinical laboratory findings. P792 blood half-life, distribution volume, and renal clearance are consistent with the definition of a rapid clearance blood-pool agent (RCBPA) as defined previously. CONCLUSION: P792 appeared to be a safe and well-tolerated RCBPA in nonpatient subjects. Phase II studies will be conducted to evaluate the efficacy of the blood-pool agent for vascular, perfusion, and permeability imaging in MRI.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".