MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007376259 · doi:10.1002/bmc.4808

Simultaneous quantification of candesartan and irbesartan in rabbit eye tissues by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry

2020· article· en· W3007376259 on OpenAlexaff
Aimin Tan, Xuan Gui, Molly D. Wong, Hui Deng, Guifen Gu, Constantine Fanaras, John C. Fanaras

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Chromatography · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsNucro Technics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrbesartanCandesartanChromatographyChemistryLiquid chromatography–mass spectrometryHigh-performance liquid chromatographyMass spectrometryPharmacologyMedicineAngiotensin IIInternal medicineReceptorBlood pressureBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Diabetic retinopathy is a major cause of vision loss in adults. Novel eye‐drop formulations of candesartan and irbesartan are being developed for its cure or treatment. To support a preclinical trial in rabbits, it was critical to develop and validate a new LC–MS/MS method for simultaneous quantification of candesartan and irbesartan in rabbit eye tissues (cornea, aqueous humor, vitreous body and retina/choroid). Eye tissue samples were first homogenized in H 2 O‐diluted rabbit plasma. The candesartan and irbesartan in the supernatants together with their respective internal standards (candesartan‐d 4 and irbesartan‐d 4 ) were extracted by solid‐phase extraction. The extracted samples were injected onto a C 18 column for gradient separation. The MS detection was in the positive electrospray ionization mode using the multiple reaction monitoring transitions of m/z 441 → 263, 445 → 267, 429 → 207, and 433 → 211 for candesartan, candesartan‐d 4 , irbesartan and irbesartan‐d 4 , respectively. For the validated concentration ranges (2–2000 and 5–5000 ng/g for candesartan and irbesartan, respectively), the within‐run and between‐run accuracies (% bias) were within the range of −8.0–10.0. The percentage CV ranged from 0.6 to 7.3. There was no significant matrix interference nor matrix effect from different eye tissues and different rabbits. The validated method was successfully used in the Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) study of rabbits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical ChromatographySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207