Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics of Ketorolac Tromethamine After Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion and Repeat Intramuscular Bolus Injections in Healthy Adult Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ketorolac tromethamine is a nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug that exhibits analgesic activity with no sedative or anxiolytic properties. Twelve healthy male subjects were enrolled in a study to receive either of 2 treatments over 2 periods in an open‐label, randomized, 2‐way crossover design: (A) 120 mg of ketorolac tromethamine administered as a continuous subcutaneous infusion over a 24‐hour period; or (B) an identical total daily dose administered as 4 intramuscular bolus injections of 30 mg each given every 6 hours (current labeled treatment regimen). The pharmacokinetic and safety profiles were evaluated for both treatments. Both modes of administration have similar values for area under the curve (AUC) and half‐life (t1/2), suggesting that continuous subcutaneous infusion and repeated intramuscular bolus injections have similar bioavailability. The peak plasma concentration (Cmax) was 40% lower when ketorolac was administered as a continuous subcutaneous infusion compared with repeat intramuscular bolus injections. The concentration at steady‐state (Css) for continuous subcutaneous infusion was between the Cmax and Ctrough values obtained following the 4 intramuscular injections. Both treatment arms were well tolerated.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".