MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052972267 · doi:10.1081/pdt-120027414

Amlodipine Besylate–Excipients Interaction in Solid Dosage Form

2004· article· en· W2052972267 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmaceutical Development and Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Glycation End Products research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsAmlodipineMagnesium stearateChemistryChromatographyExcipientDosage formHigh-performance liquid chromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article studies the compatibility of amlodipine besylate in its solid formulations with various drug excipients. The various factors affecting amlodipine besylate stability were studied using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). It has been found that binary 1:1 mixtures of amlodipine besylate and an excipient are stable at 65 degrees C and 40 degrees C/75% RH. Further investigations were conducted to study the stability of amlodipine besylate in multicomponent mixtures, including mixtures with actual formulations. The study reveals that mixtures of lactose, magnesium stearate, and water induce some instability on amlodipine besylate. The major degradation product confirmed by HPLC-mass spectrometry is amlodipine besylate glycosyl. This is in conformity with the well-known Maillard reaction between primary amines and lactose. Thus, lactose-free amlodipine formulations are recommended from the safety, quality, efficacy, and process cost points of view.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.344 · 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