Comparison of tape stripping with the human skin blanching assay for the bioequivalence assessment of topical clobetasol propionate formulations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A draft guidance on tape stripping for assessing the bioavailability/bioequivalence of topical formulations was issued by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 1998 but has since been withdrawn. This was due to problems associated with the method and also inconsistencies and variability in the resulting data. The purpose of this study was to re-visit the tape stripping technique, incorporate refinements to reduce variability and validate the method using bioequivalence data obtained from the assessment of a topical corticosteroid cream containing 0.05% clobetasol propionate using the human skin-blanching assay. METHODS: A pilot tape stripping study was conducted to establish the variability of the formulations.The bioequivalence of two different commercially available clobetasol propionate cream formulations and a clobetasol propionate ointment formulation were subsequently investigated using the tape stripping method. RESULTS: The data from the pilot tape stripping study correlated well with data from the human skin-blanching assay. A subsequent pivotal tape stripping study confirmed bioequivalence between the two cream formulations whereas bio-inequivalence was demonstrated between the cream and ointment formulations. CONCLUSIONS: These studies show that the results from tape stripping concur with data from the human skin blanching assay and demonstrate the potential of a well-controlled tape stripping study as an option for the assessment of bioequivalence of topical corticosteroid formulations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".