Two compartment pharmacokinetic model describes the intra‐articular delivery and retention of rhprg4 following ACL transection in the Yucatan mini pig
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Treatment of the injured joint with rhPRG4 is based on recent observations that inflammation diminishes expression of native PRG4. Re‐establishing lubrication between pressurized and sliding cartilage surfaces during locomotion promotes the nascent expression of PRG4 and thus intra‐articular (IA) treatment strategies should be supported by pharmacokinetic evidence establishing the residence time of rhPRG4. A total of 21 Yucatan minipigs weighing ∼55 kg each received 4 mg of 131I‐rhPRG4 delivered by IA injection 5 days following surgical ACL transection. Animals were sequentially euthanized following IA rhPRG4 at 10 min (time zero), 24, 72 h, 6, 13 and 20 days later. The decay of the 131I‐rhPRG4 was measured relative to a non‐injected aliquot and normalized to the weight of cartilage samples, menisci and synovium, and known cartilage volumes from each compartment surface obtained from representative Yucatan minipig knees. Decay of 131I‐rhPRG4 from joint tissues best fit a two‐compartment model with an α half‐life (t1/2α) of 11.28 h and β half‐life (t1/2β) of 4.81 days. The tibial and femoral cartilage, meniscii, and synovium retained 7.7% of dose at 24 h. High concentrations of rhPRG4 were found in synovial fluid (SF) that was non‐aspiratable and resided on the articular surfaces, removable by irrigation, at 10 min following 131I‐rhPRG4 injection. Synovial fluid K21 exceeded K12 and SF t1/2β was 28 days indicating SF is the reservoir for rhPRG4 following IA injection. Clinical Significance: rhPRG4 following IA delivery in a traumatized joint populates articular surfaces for a considerable period and may promote the native expression of PRG4. © 2018 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 37:386–396, 2019.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".