Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39371108›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of analytical chemistry2024

Determination of Alzheimer's Drugs in a Human Urine Sample by Different Chemometric Methods: Chemometric Determination of Alzheimer's Drugs.

Güzide Pekcan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of analytical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Güzide PekcanDepartment of Chemistry Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta 32260, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9230-5634

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, spectrophotometric determination of donepezil and rivastigmine in healthy human urine samples was carried out by the statistical method. Partial least squares (PLS) and principal component regression (PCR) from multivariate calibration methods were used to evaluate the data obtained from the UV-Vis spectroscopy analysis of the urine sample. Mixtures of each early substance were prepared prior to urine sample analysis, and simultaneous determination of donepezil and rivastigmine was performed on the established chemometric model without any prior separation. The calibration curves of each drug were analyzed, and linearity values were also analyzed. For donepezil and rivastigmine, they were 0.9989 and 0.9997, respectively, and were linear over the concentration range of the synthetic mixture. When both chemometric methods (PLS and PCR) were evaluated in terms of accuracy and reproducibility, very high recoveries and small standard deviations were determined. In the PLS method, the standard error of prediction (SEC), the sum of the prediction residual errors (PRESS), the limit of quantitation (LOQ), and the limit of detection (LOD) values were 0.015, 0.0030, 0.067, 0.24, 0.018, 0.0042, 0.089, and 0.301 for donepezil and rivastigmine, respectively. In the PCR method, SEC, PRESS, LOD, and LOQ values are 0.016, 0.0054, 0.066, and 0.23 for donepezil and 0.022, 0.0062, 0.091, and 0.300 for rivastigmine. Chemometrics is used for speed, simplicity, and reliability. The proposed methods have been successfully applied to a sample of urine.

Indexed as

Alzheimer's drugchemometrydonepezilrivastigmine

Identifiers

PMID39371108
PMCPMC11452237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.