ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics1997
Metabolite mean transit times in the liver as predicted by various models of hepatic elimination.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modeling of hepatic elimination and organ distribution kinetics with the extended convection-dispersion model.Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics · 1999Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Predicted area under curve (AUC), mean transit time (MTT) and normalized variance (CV2) data have been compared for parent compound and generated metabolite following an impulse input into the liver. Models studied were the well-stirred (tank) model, tube model, a distributed tube model, dispersion model (Danckwerts and mixed boundary conditions) and tanks-in-series model. It is well known that discrimination between models for a parent solute is greatest when the parent solute is highly extracted by the liver. With the metabolite, greatest model differences for MTT and CV2 occur when parent solute is poorly extracted. In all cases the predictions of the distributed tube, dispersion, and tanks-in-series models are between the predictions of the tank and tube models. The dispersion model with mixed boundary conditions yields identical predictions to those for the distributed tube model (assuming an inverse gaussian distribution of tube transit times). The dispersion model with Danckwerts boundary conditions and the tanks-in series models give similar predictions to the dispersion (mixed boundary conditions) and the distributed tube. The normalized variance for parent compound is dependent upon hepatocyte permeability only within a distinct range of permeability values. This range is similar for each model but the order of magnitude predicted for normalized variance is model dependent. Only for a one-compartment system is the MTT for generated metabolite equal to the sum of MTTs for the parent compound and preformed metabolite administered as parent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9561490What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.