MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2322332946 · doi:10.14227/dt110404p13

A New Crescent-shaped Spindle for Drug Dissolution Testing—But Why a New Spindle?

2004· article· en· W2322332946 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueDissolution Technologies · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
ThématiqueDrug Solubulity and Delivery Systems
Établissements canadiensBanting Research FoundationHealth Canada
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDissolution testingDrugChemistryMedicinePharmacology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Assessment of drug dissolution from solid oral dosage forms such as tablets and capsules is an established practice,and an integral part of pharmaceutical product development and quality evaluation. The rationale for conducting such a test is based on the fact that for a drug to be absorbed from gastrointestinal (GI) tract to systemic circulation, it must be released from the product and dissolved in aqueous based GI tract fluid. In general, without dissolution in aqueous based medium, absorption of the drug in the body may not occur, resulting in lack of anticipated therapeutic effects. Thus drug and drug product dissolution characteristics may directly be related to efficacy of a pharmaceutical product. Considering its critical importance and extensive use, the testing aspect for measuring dissolution is surprisingly simple in concept and practice. In fact, drug dissolution measurement may be considered as a specific form of solubility measurement. However a critical difference between solubility determination and dissolution testing is that solubility is measured once the solution becomes saturated, a single point answer, but dissolution is measured at single and/or multiple times and usually below saturation. Commonly, solubilities are determined in pure solvents (aqueous solution or organic) at room temperature (~20oC) in a beaker or Erlenmeyer flask with a magnetic stirrer. Drug dissolution is measured at 37oC in water or aqueous based buffers (pH range of 1 to 7) in round bottom containers with special stirrers known as Paddle and Basket [1]. A schematic representation of dissolution vessels and stirrers is shown in Figure 1. Generally known as dissolution apparatuses, they are commercially available with accessories to conduct testing under precisely controlled mechanical and operational parameters. Generally, drug dissolution tests are conducted using Paddle or Basket apparatuses containing 900 mL of medium, with spindle rotation speeds between 50 and 150 rpm, most often 50 or 100 rpm. The choice of spindle type and rpm appears to be based on traditional use rather than from scientific rationale. The tests are conducted for various durations from 15 minutes to 24 hours, with frequent sampling, depending on the nature of products. The results are reported as cumulated percent drug dissolved in appropriate times, e.g., 75% Q in 45 minutes. Based on experimental details and observations during the product development phase, the test, or a simpler version of the test, becomes a quality control tool to ascertain lot-to-lot consistency of drug release. Up to this stage there are generally no issues in explaining the need for dissolution testing, conducting it and reporting the results. This is where simplicity of the drug dissolution testing ends. The main difficulty and complexity in dissolution testing is not in conducting the experiments, but obtaining reproducible results and interpreting and relating the results to product attributes and their biological response (e.g. bioavailability of drug), commonly referred to as in vitro/in vivo correlation (IVIVC). This is where no, or limited, successes have been achieved. Unfortunately, this issue has been with us since the early days, with the hope that if enough controls and strict guidance for conducting dissolution studies are established, these shortcomings will either be eliminated or at least be controlled.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,404
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,126
Tête enseignante GPT0,390
Écart entre enseignants0,264 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle