MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223502922

Prolonged absorption and susceptibility to enterohepatic circulation after oral administration of ergot alkaloids in ewes.

2022· article· en· W4223502922 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed A. Almousa, Rossalin Yonpiam, Barry Blakley, Ahmad Al‐Dissi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnterohepatic circulationPharmacokineticsPharmacologyOral administrationChemistryBiologyMetabolismBiochemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics profile of ergot alkaloids when administered to sheep orally. Although ergot alkaloids frequently contaminate animal feed, current understanding of their pharmacokinetics in animals cannot adequately predict toxicity. Blood samples were collected from ewes at 0.5, 1, 3, 5, and 12 h after oral exposure to 4 ergot alkaloids: ergocornine, ergocristine, ergocryptine, and ergosine, followed by serum analysis of these alkaloids using high performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. The alkaloids showed extended absorption time, in addition to clear signs of enterohepatic circulation. This pharmacokinetic profile suggests potential enhanced toxicity in animals with disorders related to secretion of bile acid. It may also explain the high susceptibility of sheep to ergot poisoning compared to other species. An extended sampling protocol (> 12 h) is necessary, however, to identify the pharmacokinetic properties of ergot alkaloids in ewes. In conclusion, ewes exposed to ergot alkaloids showed a prolonged absorption phase and enterohepatic circulation, which is in contrast with human ergot pharmacokinetics.

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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207