Determination of Chemical Stability of Various Famotidine Dosage Forms by UV –Visible Spectrophotometric Method and Data Analysis by R-GUI Stability Software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
H2 receptor antagonists are still the first line of therapy in treating gastro esophageal reflux diseases as well as other ulcers of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Accelerated stability studies of different brands of Famotidine tablets (20mg) and suspension(10mg/5ml),both liquid and dry, were carried out at 40 oC ± 2 oC (Temperature) and 75% R.H. ± 5% R.H. The assay of tablets was conducted by both HPLC and UV/Visible Spectrophotometric methods whereas for suspensions only UV/Visible Spectrophotometric method was used. The tests were conducted at 0, 1, 3 and 6 months as per guidelines of ICH for accelerated studies. The results of physical tests indicated that the dissolution of tablet decreases in all cases with time whereas disintegration of all brands was found within 15 minutes throughout the course of study while the hardness demonstrated to be decline with time. Kinetic treatment to determine rate constants and shelf lives indicated that dry suspension was more stable than liquids while the tablets showed stability for three years which was parallel to their claimed expiry. Among tablets, brand A was the most stable and among suspensions, brand C showed the longest stability. The stability studies were also carried out by using a software R-Gui (version 2.13) and results were compared with manually calculated results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".