Design and evaluation of a novel floating osmotic pump system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Find a novel delivery system for oral administration of drugs that have absorption window in the upper part of gastrointestinal (GI) track. METHODS: Dipyridamole was chosen as the model drug. A novel system, which combined the osmotic pump controlled release system and the floating system, was designed; matrix tablets (MT) were prepared for compares. The effects of pH, temperature and hydrodynamic conditions on drug release and the floating behavior of floating osmotic pump system (FOP) were investigated. In vivo evaluation was performed by a three-crossover study in six Beagle dogs relative to the conventional tablet (CT). Cumulative percent input in vivo was compared with that of in vitro release profiles. RESULTS: Floating behavior of FOP, drug releases from FOP and MT were sensitive to pH of dissolution media but not sensitive to temperature; the release of dipyridamole from MT was influenced by stirring rate while drug release from FOP was not. AUC of FOP was larger than MT and CT. The linear correlations between fraction absorbed in vivo and fraction dissolved in vitro was established for FOP-a true zero-order release formula, whereas only a nonlinear correlation was obtained for MT. CONCLUSIONS: FOP could be a novel way for the oral administration for drugs like dipyridamole.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".