Fast-Disintegrating Sublingual Epinephrine Tablets: Effect of Tablet Dimensions on Tablet Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of changing dimensions on the hardness (H), disintegration time (DT), and wetting time (WT) of fast-disintegrating epinephrine tablets for sublingual administration as potential first aid treatment for anaphylaxis. Tablet formulations I and II, containing 0% and 10% epinephrine bitartrate, respectively, and weighing 150 mg were prepared by direct compression. Formulations were compressed at a range of forces using an 8/32'' die with concave punches (CP); a 10/32'' and an 11/32'' die with CP and flat punches (FP). Tablet weight variation, content uniformity, thickness, H, DT, and WT were measured. The 8/32'', 10/32'', and 11/32'' dies resulted in tablet thickness of ranges 0.25-0.19'', 0.17-0.1'', and 0.16-0.08'', respectively. The DT and WT using the 8/32'' die were<or=10 and<or=30 sec, respectively, at H<or=5.4+/-0.2 kg for formulation I, and H<or=5.4+/-0.3 kg for formulation II. The DT and WT were<or=10 and<or=30 sec, respectively, using 10/32'' die/CP, 10/32'' die/FP, 11/32'' die/CP, and 11/32'' die/FP at H<or=6.2+/-0.6 kg, <or=6.8+/-0.4 kg, <or=4.9+/-0.1 kg, and<or=7.2+/-0.3 kg, respectively, for formulation I. For formulation II, the DT and WT were<or=10 sec and<or=30 sec, respectively, when H<4 kg. No difference in DT and WT was observed between concave and flat tablets. The 11/32'' and 10/32'' dies resulted in more ideal tablet dimensions for sublingual administration, but H must be maintained<4 kg to ensure rapid DT and WT.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".