Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the effects of two lipid excipients, Peceol and Gelucire 44/14 on the in vitro pancreatic lipase activity. METHODS: A 50 microL reaction mixture, consisting of 45 microL (3H) triolein as the radiolabeled substrate, 2.5 microL Peceol or Gelucire 44/14 (0.05-0.5%), either alone or in combination, 2.5 microL colipase (100 microg/mL), and 2.5 microL pancreatic lipase (1 mg/mL), was incubated for 10 min at room temperature. At the end of incubation, the reaction was stopped by the addition of an extraction solvent containing chloroform, methanol, and n-heptane (12.5:14:10), and the mixture vortexed briefly. Subsequently, 250 microL of 50 mM sodium carbonate was added and the aqueous and organic phase separated by centrifugation for 5 min at 1000 g. One hundred microliters of the supernatant was transferred to a scintillation counter and then radioactivity measured after the addition of 3.6 mL of scintillation fluid. Pancreatic lipase activity was determined by measuring the amount of free fatty acid released into the incubation medium and expressed as micromol free fatty acid released/min. RESULTS: When used alone, Peceol inhibited the pancreatic lipase activity significantly in a concentration-dependent manner, with a maximum inhibition of 57% at 0.4% of the excipient [p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)]. Similarly, Gelucire 44/14 alone caused inhibition of lipase activity in a concentration-dependent manner. However, the maximum inhibition (30%) was smaller in magnitude compared with the former agent. When the two excipients were used in combination, the inhibitory effects on the enzyme activity were similar to those observed with the individual agents (p < 0.05, one-way ANOVA). However, the maximum inhibition of 30% was lower than that observed with Peceol alone. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study suggest that these lipid excipients inhibit in vitro pancreatic lipase activity and should be taken into consideration when developing oral formulations using these agents.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".