Pharmacokinetics, withdrawal period and risk assessment of enrofloxacin in the northern snakehead (<i>Channa argus</i>) following bath administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Enrofloxacin (ENR) is widely used in aquaculture practice, but little is known about its pharmacokinetic, withdrawal period and dietary risk in fish via bath administration. The purpose of this study was to provide data support for the use of ENR bath therapy in the northern snakehead (Channa argus). The pilot study was carried out to evaluate the therapy concentrations of ENR in northern snakehead with immersion concentrations ranged from 5 to 40 mg/L for 6 h. Based on results of the pilot study, an ENR immersion concentration of 20 mg/L was used for the formal experiment. At this dose, the peak concentrations of ENR in plasma, muscle plus skin, liver and kidney were 4.85, 4.55, 3.87 and 7.42 μg/mL (or g), respectively. According to the AUC0‐∞ values, the distribution of ENR in northern snakehead followed the order of kidney > plasma > liver > muscle + skin. The elimination of ENR in northern snakehead was very slow, the half‐lives (T1/2λz) were up to 90.31, 85.5, 104.56 and 120.9 h in plasma, muscle plus skin, liver and kidney, respectively. Ciprofloxacin (CIP) was not detected in any samples in the pilot study and was only occasionally detected in muscle plus skin and liver samples in formal experiment. Based on the calculated PK/PD index AUC/MIC and Cmax/MIC, the current bath treatment regimen will have a good therapeutic effect on infections caused by bacteria with MIC below 0.6 μg/mL. The dietary risk assessment suggested that there was a dietary risk (Hazard Quotients > 10%) until day 6 after bath treatment. It is mandatory for ENR to maintain a withdrawal period of at least 450°C‐day in northern snakehead after bath treatment ceased.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".