MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092823011 · doi:10.1081/ddc-200040237

Evaluation and Comparison of Five Matrix Excipients for the Controlled Release of Acrivastine and Pseudoephedrine

2004· article· en· W2092823011 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaochen Gu, Daryl J. Fediuk, F. Estelle R. Simons, Keith J. Simons

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug Development and Industrial Pharmacy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersDow Chemical Company
KeywordsPseudoephedrineChemistryChromatographyMatrix (chemical analysis)PharmacologyActive ingredientTabletingControlled releaseDosage formNasal decongestantSolubilityEphedrineMedicineAnesthesiaOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For treatment of allergic rhinitis, acrivastine with pseudoephedrine in Semprex-D conventional capsules requires dosing every 6-8 hours. This study was designed to develop a controlled release matrix tablet of acrivastine and pseudoephedrine and evaluate 5 different matrix excipients for their in vitro controlled-release profiles. Compritol 888ATO, Eudragit RS, Methocel K100M, Polyox WSR301 and Precirol ATO5 were used alone or in varying combinations for the formulation of controlled release matrix tablets. In vitro drug dissolution and mathematical modeling were used to characterize drug release rate and extent. All tablet formulations yielded quality matrix preparations with satisfactory tableting properties. Due to the aqueous solubility of pseudoephedrine and the size of the dose, none of the matrix excipients used alone prolonged drug release significantly to meet the desired twice-daily administration frequency. The use of two excipients in combination, however, significantly decreased the dissolution rate of both active ingredients. A combined lipid-based Compritol and hydrophilic Methocel produced optimal controlled drug release for longer than 8 hours for both acrivastine and pseudoephedrine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug Development and Industrial PharmacySame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207