Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of a Single 5-Gram Bolus of Creatine Monohydrate Versus Two Other Creatine-Containing Investigational Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the relative pharmacokinetics of creatine monohydrate delivered as a formula or as a pure powder (all mixed in solution). A single 5 g bolus of creatine monohydrate was ingested as CreaBev 1, CreaBev 2, or creatine monohydrate. Participants we assigned a test product and monitored in a supervised laboratory setting for ingestion and all blood draws starting 30 min post-ingestion to the 6-h mark. Standard pharmacokinetic analysis was undertaken to determine relative maximum concentration (Cmax), time to maximum concentration (Tmax), and area under the curve (AUC) for the products. Cmax data indicate that CreaBev 1 10.55±4.10, CreaBev 2 15.45±5.48, and creatine monohydrate 12.77±4.0 nmol/h/μL. The Tmax analysis demonstrated CreaBev 1 1.20±1.01, CreaBev 2 1.23±0.65, and creatine monohydrate 0.91±0.2 h. The AUC data indicate that CreaBev 1 22.90±9.17, CreaBev 2 33.92±9.52, and creatine monohydrate 29.58±11.93 nmol/h/μL. When examining the data for pharmacokinetics, the AUC and Cmax pharmacokinetics were greatest for CreaBev 2 (p<0.021 and 0.020). Within the confines of this study, CreaBev 2 produced the highest blood concentrations of creatine as compared to creatine monohydrate and CreaBev 1.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".