MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806608475 · doi:10.1002/cpdd.581

Pharmacokinetics of Perampanel in Healthy Korean, White, and Japanese Adult Subjects

2018· article· en· W2806608475 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hiroko Tabuchi, Sari Shiba, Sanae Yasuda, Akihiro Ohnishi, Jae‐Gook Shin

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology in Drug Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEisai Canada
KeywordsMedicinePerampanelPharmacokineticsWhite (mutation)PharmacologyAdverse effectGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perampanel is a highly selective, orally active, noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist that has been approved in many countries as a treatment for partial-onset seizures and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures. The pharmacokinetics (PK) of perampanel following multiple doses in healthy Korean, white, and Japanese male subjects were assessed in 3 studies. Noncompartmental PK parameters were derived from plasma concentration-time data. At steady state of perampanel 2-, 4-, and 6-mg oral multiple administration, perampanel was rapidly absorbed, as plasma perampanel concentration reached maximum concentration after 0.55-1 hour (median) after dosing in all 3 ethnic groups. The elimination was slow, with terminal elimination phase half-life values ranging from 63.9-129 hours (mean) for doses of 2-6 mg; there was no specific tendency suggesting a dose-related effect, and perampanel PK were linear in Korean subjects. There were no clinically relevant ethnic differences in PK following multiple doses of perampanel 2 and 4 mg between Korean, white, or Japanese subjects. Perampanel was well tolerated by all 3 ethnic groups. This outcome indicates that with respect to PK, the dosing regimens established in white and Japanese patients are applicable to Korean patients.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.372 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Pharmacology in Drug DevelopmentSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207