The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Evaluation of Using Dog as an Animal Model to Study the Fraction of Oral Dose Absorbed of 43 Drugs in Humans
Abstract
Purpose To conduct a retrospective evaluation of using dog as an animal model to study the fraction of oral dose absorbed (F) of 43 drugs in humans and to briefly discuss potential factors that might have contributed to the observed differences in absorption.Methods Mean human and dog absorption data obtained under fasted state of 43 drugs with markedly different physicochemical and pharmacological properties and with mean F values ranging from 0.015 to 1.0 were obtained from the literature. Correlation of F values between humans and dogs was studied. Based on the same references, additional F data for humans and rats were also obtained for 18 drugs.Results Among the 43 drugs studied, 22 drugs were virtually completely absorbed in both dogs and humans. However, the overall correlation was relatively poor (r2 = 0.5123) as compared to the earlier rat vs. human study on 64 drugs (r2 = 0.975). Several drugs showed much better absorption in dogs than in humans. Marked differences in the nonliner absorption profiles between the two species were found for some drugs. Also, some drugs had much longer Tmax values and prolonged absorption in humans than in dogs that might be theoretically predicted. Data on 18 drugs further support great similarity in F between humans and rats reported earlier from our laboratory.Conclusions Although dog has been commonly employed as an animal model for studying oral absorption in drug discovery and development, the present study suggests that one may need to exercise caution in the interpretation of data obtained. Exact reasons for the observed interspecies differences in oral absorption remain to be explored.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“These studies may not specify translation or prediction in their title, e.g. [79, 80].”
From Animal to human translation: a systematic scoping review of reported concordance rates (2019) · cites this paper as [80]
Citations
The citation lists are queued
They are fetched later and appear here then.
References 27 · Cited by 182
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Physicians' Desk Reference, 51th edition, pp. 1187-1190, Medical Economics company, Montvale, NJ, 1997.
Metadata
- Authors
- Chiou, W. L., Jeong, H. Y., Chung, S. M., & Wu, T. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chiou, Win L.
- ORCID
- Chiou, Win L.
- Venue
- Pharmaceutical Research
- Published
- 2000-02
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 135-140
- ISSN
- 0724-8741 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-904X
- OpenAlex
- W1517652134
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 7.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Pharmaceutical Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Drug Solubulity and Delivery Systems
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Keywords
- oral drug absorption, nonlinear absorption, Tmax, oral bioavailability
- MeSH terms
- Acids, Acyclovir, Administration, Oral, Alkalies, Animals, Antihypertensive Agents, Antiviral Agents, Chlorothiazide, Dogs, Enzyme Inhibitors, Fasting, Humans, Intestinal Absorption, Pharmacokinetics, Regression Analysis, Retrospective Studies, Species Specificity, Acarbose, Rats
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of Using Dog as an Animal Model to Study the Fraction of Oral Dose Absorbed of 43 Drugs in Humans. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1023/a:1007552927404
- The paper
- Chiou, W. L., Jeong, H. Y., Chung, S. M., & Wu, T. C. (2000). Evaluation of Using Dog as an Animal Model to Study the Fraction of Oral Dose Absorbed of 43 Drugs in Humans. Pharmaceutical Research. https://doi.org/10.1023/a%3A1007552927404