Quality Control of Multi-Component, Intact Pharmaceutical Tablets with Three Different Near-Infrared Apparatuses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop a robust and versatile near infrared (NIR) analysis protocol for the quality control of intact tablets containing two active pharmaceutical ingredients, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and caffeine, as well as three excipients. Reference samples were prepared and a calibration model built for each apparatus. All components of the formulation were characterized by transmission measurements with NIR spectroscopy (NIRS). The study was performed with three different Fourier transform NIR apparatuses and chemometric models. Calibration was carried out by the partial least squares regression method and a pre-processing technique to optimize the efficiency of the models. High performance liquid chromatography was the reference method for obtaining active pharmaceutical ingredient concentration values used in model building. It also served as a reference for chemometric model validation. Eighteen samples were analyzed by chemometric modeling to predict each component's concentration. Four out of five ingredients were quantified precisely with the three chemometric models developed. ASA quantification uncertainty ranges were between 1.0 and 1.1%, and the average error was less than 5% for caffeine. More than 99.9% of tablet content were analyzed and quantified. The results show that a versatile in-line or at-line NIRS method, with three different chemometric models built from three different acquisition apparatuses, can be developed without sample preparation for pharmaceutical tablet quality control of existing products.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".