Mechanism of the first and second peaks in epinephrine pharmacokinetics over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background : There is a documented double peak phenomenon following the intramuscular injection of epinephrine, however these peaks are typically representative of mean epinephrine concentrations and not individual subjects. Objective : An examination of epinephrine pharmacokinetics was conducted to explore the nature of the double peak phenomenon and to determine if the double peaks observed in mean concentration profiles were also observed in individual subjects. Methods : A GCP compliant study was conducted in 36 adult volunteers with a history of type I allergies. Blood samples were collected before and at multiple timepoints after subjects self- administered two FDA-approved epinephrine auto-injectors (EpiPen 0.3 mg and Symjepi 0.3 mg). Pharmacokinetic parameters (C max and t max ) and concentration-time curves were determined based on individual subjects. Subjects were categorized by their t max (≤4 min, >4 min - ≤10 min, >10 min - ≤20 min, >20 min - ≤30 min, >30 min - ≤45 min, and >45 min, presented as ≤4 min, ≤10 min, ≤20 min, ≤30 min, ≤45 min, and >45 min, respectively). Results : The majority of individual subjects did not have double peaks. Double peaks in mean concentration-time profiles were observed when t max was ≤4 min following EpiPen and Symjepi, t max ≤30 min following EpiPen, and t max ≤45 min following EpiPen. The individual epinephrine concentration curves for subjects with a t max ≤4 min following EpiPen and Symjepi and t max ≤45 min following EpiPen demonstrate that the majority of individual subjects do not have double peaks. Conclusion : These data suggest that the double peaks observed in mean epinephrine concentrations are likely driven by subsets of subjects with either early or late t max values and may not necessarily be a pharmacokinetic characteristic of epinephrine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".