MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095964129 · doi:10.1002/cjoc.200990130

Development and Validation of Selective Spectrophotometric Methods for the Determination of Pregabalin in Pharmaceutical Preparation

2009· article· en· W2095964129 on OpenAlexaff
Armağan Önal

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Journal of Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Methods in Pharmaceuticals
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryNinhydrinColor reactionTetracyanoquinodimethaneChromatographyAmine gas treatingDimethylformamidePregabalinCombinatorial chemistryOrganic chemistrySolventMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Three simple, quick and sensitive methods are described for the spectrophotometric determination of pregabalin (Pgb) in pharmaceutical preparations. Among them, the first two methods are based on the reaction of Pgb as n‐electron donors with 2,3‐dichloro‐5,6‐dicyano‐1,4‐benzoquinone (DDQ) and 7,7,8,8‐tetracyanoquinodimethane (TCNQ) as π‐acceptors to give highly colored complex species. The colored products were quantitated spectrophotometrically at 494 and 841 nm for DDQ and TCNQ, respectively. Optimization of the different experimental conditions was conducted. Beer's law was obeyed in the concentration ranges 2.0–30.0 and 1.5–10 g·mL −1 for DDQ and TCNQ methods, respectively. The third method is based on the interaction of ninhydrin (NN) with primary amine present in the pregabaline. This reaction produces a blue coloured product in N , N ‐dimethylformamide (DMF) medium, which absorbs maximally at 573 nm. Beer's law was found in the concentration range 40.0–180.0 µg·mL −1 . The methods were applied successfully to the determination of this drug in pharmaceutical dosage forms.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.423 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Journal of ChemistrySame topicAnalytical Methods in PharmaceuticalsFrench-language works237,207