MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941556904 · doi:10.1177/1087054719841131

Single-Dose Pharmacokinetics of Amphetamine Extended-Release Oral Suspension in Healthy Adults

2019· article· en· W2941556904 on OpenAlexaff
Barry K. Herman, Mohammed Bouhajib, Thomas King, Judith C. Kando, Antonio Pardo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsPharma Medica Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCmaxBioavailabilityCrossover studyPharmacokineticsAmphetamineDextroamphetaminePharmacologyAdverse effectBioequivalenceChemistryMedicineInternal medicineDopamine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This single-dose pivotal study evaluated the pharmacokinetics of amphetamine extended-release oral suspension (AMPH EROS) under fasted and fed conditions and the relative bioavailability of AMPH EROS and immediate-release mixed amphetamine salts (IR MAS) in adults. Methods: This open-label, randomized, three-period, three-treatment, six-sequence crossover study enrolled 30 healthy adult participants who were randomly assigned to receive either 1 dose of AMPH EROS 18.8 mg under fed or fasted conditions or 30 mg of IR MAS under fasted conditions. Participants crossed over with a 7-day washout period between each of the three periods. Plasma samples were measured for C max , AUC 0- t , AUC 0-5 , AUC 5- t , and AUC 0-∞ for comparative bioavailability. Results: The geometric mean ratios for C max , AUC 0- t , and AUC 0-∞ were within the 90% confidence limits [80.0%, 125.0%] for comparable bioavailability. There was no food effect for AMPH EROS. Both the AMPH EROS and IR MAS formulations were generally well tolerated with no serious adverse events reported. Conclusions: The bioavailability of a single dose of AMPH EROS was comparable to two 15 mg doses of IR MAS, given 4 hr apart, with no food effect or safety concerns observed.

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)0.000
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 score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207