MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410758704 · doi:10.1515/jbcpp-2025-0026

The pharmacokinetics and comparative bioavailabilty of oral and subcutaneous semaglutide in healthy volunteers

2025· article· en· W4410758704 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Bouhajib, Zia Tayab, Chantal Di Marco, Dennis Suh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic and Clinical Physiology and Pharmacology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsPharma Medica Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemaglutideBioavailabilityPharmacokineticsPharmacologyMedicineOral administrationAdverse effectEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: In this study, the comparative bioavailability of semaglutide following the administration of oral (PO) and subcutaneous (SC) doses in healthy subjects was evaluated. The pharmacokinetics of semaglutide of these formulations at lower doses (SC dose of 0.25 mg; PO dose of 3 mg) was examined by utilizing a sensitive bioanalytical method. METHODS: Twenty-two subjects were administered either 0.25 mg SC or 3 mg PO and blood samples were taken up to 504 h. The samples were assayed for semaglutide with an analytical range of 0.05-50 ng/mL. The pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using a non-compartmental approach and were used to evaluate the comparative bioavailability of semaglutide. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of semaglutide was characterized following the administration of low subcutaneous and oral doses. The comparative bioavailability (PO relative to SC) was 0.66 % at the doses administered. Overall, the study drug was well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The bioavailability of semaglutide following oral and subcutaneous administrations has been determined using a validated bioanalytical method. This method will enable more investigations into the pharmacokinetics of all formulations of semaglutide at lower doses, which will enable a better understanding of its' disposition in healthy subjects and in patients.

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)0.001
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 score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.361 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic and Clinical Physiology and PharmacologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207