Piecing together human adult comparative pharmacokinetic trials and rodent studies: What happens to drug clearance in obesity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many comparative trials examining the effects of adult obesity on pharmacokinetics of drugs, conclusions were made based on values that were either not adjusted to total body weight or adjusted to non-obese body mass (e.g., ideal or lean body weight). In many cases these values were higher in the obese subjects. We have reviewed the data from comparative human trials, and it is apparent that in examining clearance normalization to total body weight (as typically done in studies involving pediatric obese patients), the clearances are often reduced in the obese. We have also reviewed the results of experimental obese versus non-obese rodent models. Those studies have mostly found that the systemic exposures to the same dose per body weight are increased, with obesity-related decreases in clearance. Furthermore, the expression of a number of important drug metabolizing enzymes are reduced in the experimental obese state. There is also evidence that obesity causes increases in the measured mass of eliminating organs such as liver and kidney. Human clearance normalized to total body weight appears to better reflect the underlying changes reported in the expression of protein and functional activity of drug clearance mechanisms.
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 | 0.288 | 0.284 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".