Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of various vasopressin doses and routes of administration in a neonatal piglet model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epinephrine is the only recommended vasopressor during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, there are concerns about the potential adverse effects of epinephrine, which might hamper efficacy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. An alternative might be vasopressin, which has a preferable adverse effect profile, however, its optimal dose and route of administration is unknown. We aimed to compare the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of various vasopressin doses administered via intravenous (IV), intraosseous (IO), endotracheal (ETT), and intranasal (IN) routes in healthy neonatal piglets. Forty-four post-transitional piglets (1-3 days of age) were anesthetized, intubated via a tracheostomy, and randomized to receive vasopressin via intravenous (control), IO, ETT, or IN route. Heart rate (HR), arterial blood pressure, carotid blood flow, and cardiac function (e.g., stroke volume, ejection fraction) were continuously recorded throughout the experiment. Blood was collected prior to drug administration and throughout the observation period for pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetic analysis. Significant changes in hemodynamic parameters were observed following IO administration of vasopressin while pharmacokinetic parameters were not different between IV and IO vasopressin. Administration of vasopressin via ETT or IN did not change hemodynamic parameters and had significantly lower maximum plasma concentrations and systemic absorption compared to piglets administered IV vasopressin (p < 0.05). The IV and IO routes appear the most effective for vasopressin administration in neonatal piglets, while the ETT and IN routes appear unsuitable for vasopressin administration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".