Formulation and evaluation of floating tablet of H<sub>2</sub>-receptor antagonist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Conventional sustained dosage form of ranitidine hydrochloride (HCl) does not prevent frequent administration due to its degradation in colonic media and limited absorption in the upper part of GIT. OBJECTIVES: Ranitidine HCl floating tablet was formulated with sublimation method to overcome the stated problem. METHODS: Compatibility study for screening potential excipients was carried out using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) and differential scanning chromatography (DSC). Selected excipients were further evaluated for optimizing the formulation. Preliminary screening of binder, polymer and sublimating material was based on hardness and drug release, drug release with release kinetics and floating lag time with total floatation time, respectively. Selected excipients were subjected to 3(2) factorial design with polymer and sublimating material as independent factors. Matrix tablets were obtained by using 16/32" flat-faced beveled edges punches followed by sublimation. RESULTS: FT-IR and DSC indicated no significant incompatibility with selected excipients. Klucel-LF, POLYOX WSR N 60 K and l-menthol were selected as binder, polymer and sublimating material, respectively, for factorial design batches after preliminary screening. From the factorial design batches, optimum concentration to release the drug within 12 h was found to be 420 mg of POLYOX and 40 mg of l-menthol. Stability studies indicated the formulation as stable. CONCLUSION: Ranitidine HCl matrix floating tablets were formulated to release 90% of drug in stomach within 12 h. Hence, release of the drug could be sustained within narrow absorption site. Moreover, the dosage form was found to be floating within a fraction of second independent of the pH of media ensuring a robust formulation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".