Physical Characterization of Blends of Poly(<scp>d</scp>-lactide) and LHRH (A Leuprolide Decapeptide Analog)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stereocomplexes between poly(D-lactide) (PDLA) and poly(L-lactide) (PLLA) have been extensively studied, including, in recent years, several reports on the stereocomplexation of PDLA with small molecules such as peptides. Here, the possible complexation between PDLA and luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH), a l-configured decapeptide, is considered for which several observations were made: (1) in calorimetry an additional endothermic peak appears at a lower temperature than the melting temperature of pure PDLA; (2) in Raman analyses a band splitting of the C=O stretching mode (not present in pure PDLA) shows up; (3) in X-ray diffraction, however, no change is observed after mixing the two species, indicating no crystal structure modification (and the absence of any stereocomplex crystal structure). The calorimetric double melting peak is merely explained by the presence of two distinct morphological forms of PDLA, whereas the spectroscopic band splitting can be due to simple differences of crystallinity. From these observations it is concluded that the LHRH modifies the crystallization of PDLA without, however, the formation of a stereocomplex.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".