MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1883775064

THE EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE, PH, AND DIFFERENT SOLUBILIZING AGENTS ON STABILITY OF TAXOL

2005· article· en· W1883775064 on OpenAlexaff
Hashem Montaseri, F Jamali Kohne Shahri, James A. Rogers, Ronald G. Micetich, M Danesh Talab

Bibliographic record

VenueIranian journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistrySolubilityPolyethylene glycolPEG ratioChromatographyPaclitaxelEthanolAqueous solutionGlycerolNuclear chemistryOrganic chemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inabilities to attain adequate aqueous solubility and stability have made the preparation of a clinically suitable formulation of taxol difficult. Addition of nicotinamide (ND), 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPsCD), polyethylene glycol, (PEG), bile salts (BS, 50:50 sodium cholate: deoxycholate), and cremophor EL can improve the solubility of taxol. Studies were undertaken to compare the stability of taxol in HPsCD (20%), ND (20%), PEG (20%), BS (20%), and cremophor EL (cremophor: ethanol 0.5% of each) solutions at 25, 37, 50, and 60 o C. Taxol concentration was measured by HPLC method. The rate of degradation proceeded in a Log-linear fashion and increased progressively with the elevation of temperature in all solutions except in HPβCD which taxol had negligible degradation. In the absence of added agents, taxol exhibited the lowest and highest stability at pH 1.2 and 4.5, respectively. Taxol was most stable in HPβCD followed by PEG and then ND. The stability of taxol increased linearly with the HPβCD concentration (0-5% w/v). Due to the observed improved stability and solubility, HPβCD may be considered for pharmaceutical studies as a suitable stabilizer for formulation of taxol.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIranian journal of pharmaceutical sciencesSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207