MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181591756

A VALIDATED RPHPLC METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF IMPURITIES IN TAMSULOSIN HCL

2011· article· en· W2181591756 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
T. Sudha, Jitendra Dhomane

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry and Biological Activities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryTamsulosinChromatographyImpurityHigh-performance liquid chromatographyOrganic chemistryInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple and rapid reversed phase high performance liquid chromatographic method for the separation and determination of process related impurities of Tamsulosin HCL (TAM) was developed. The separation was achieved on a reverse phase C18 column using the gradient LC method, solution A and solution B as mobile phase. The solution A contains aqueous ortho phosphate buffer pH 6.5 and solution B contains a mixture of water: acetronitrile (90:10%v/v). The method was linear over a range of 0.2 to 1.9µg/ml for process related impurities and 0.2 to 12.8µg/ml for Tamsulosin HCL. The recoveries were found to be in the range of 92.14 to 104.44% for impurities as well as Tamsulosin HCL. The precision and robustness of the method were evaluated. It was subjected to the stress condition of oxidative, acidic, basic, hydrolytic, thermal and photolytic degradation. The degradation products were well resolved from the main peak and its impurities, proving the stability indicating power of the method. It was used not only for quality assurance, but also for monitoring the synthetic reaction involved in the process development work in the laboratory. The method was found to be specific, precise and reliable for the determination of un reacted levels of raw materials, intermediates in the reaction mixtures and the finished products of Tamsulosin HCL.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ChemistrySame topicPhytochemistry and Biological ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207