Elimination of intravenous alendronate by hemodialysis: A kinetic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The potential utility of intravenous alendronate for the treatment of osteoporosis in hemodialysis patients was recently reported. However, the pharmacokinetics of intravenous alendronate in patients on hemodialysis is not clear. Methods Six hemodialysis patients (mean age, 80.5 years) with osteoporosis who had received intravenous alendronate prior to the study were enrolled. The participants received a 30‐min infusion of 900‐μg alendronate intravenously at the beginning of the dialysis session. The blood flow rate (Qb) and dialysate flow rate (Qd) were set at 200 mL/min and 500 mL/min, respectively. All patients used the same dialyzer (1.5‐m2 polysulfone membrane). At the completion of administration, plasma and dialysate samples were collected, and alendronate concentrations were determined using metal‐free high‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)‐tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). Results The plasma arterial alendronate concentration was 150.9 ± 46.09 ng/mL. It decreased through the dialyzer to 76.1 ± 34.1 ng/mL (venous alendronate concentration). Mean alendronate clearance was 113.9 ± 25.6 mL/min. Mean alendronate removal by hemodialysis, measured by the difference in arterial–venous concentrations, was 51.8%. Conclusions Fifty percent of intravenous alendronate was removed by hemodialysis, which is nearly equal to elimination of alendronate in patients with normal renal function. The elimination by hemodialysis would decrease the risk of excessive accumulation in bone. UMIN 000027182.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".