Effect of Process Variables on the Drucker–Prager Cap Model and Residual Stress Distribution of Tablets Estimated by the Finite Element Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multivariate statistical technique was applied to clarify the causal correlation between variables in the manufacturing process and the residual stress distribution of tablets. Theophylline tablets were prepared according to a Box-Behnken design using the wet granulation method. Water amounts (X1), kneading time (X2), lubricant-mixing time (X3), and compression force (X4) were selected as design variables. The Drucker-Prager cap (DPC) model was selected as the method for modeling the mechanical behavior of pharmaceutical powders. Simulation parameters, such as Young's modulus, Poisson rate, internal friction angle, plastic deformation parameters, and initial density of the powder, were measured. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the simulation parameters were significantly affected by process variables. The constructed DPC models were fed into the analysis using the finite element method (FEM), and the mechanical behavior of pharmaceutical powders during the tableting process was analyzed using the FEM. The results of this analysis revealed that the residual stress distribution of tablets increased with increasing X4. Moreover, an interaction between X2 and X3 also had an effect on shear and the x-axial residual stress of tablets. Bayesian network analysis revealed causal relationships between the process variables, simulation parameters, residual stress distribution, and pharmaceutical responses of tablets. These results demonstrated the potential of the FEM as a tool to help improve our understanding of the residual stress of tablets and to optimize process variables, which not only affect tablet characteristics, but also are risks of causing tableting problems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".