Разработка усовершенствованной технологии выделения и очистки полимиксина В
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Предложена усовершенствованная технология выделения и очистки полимиксина В с использованием макропористого сильнокислотного катионита Dowex-MSC-1 и сульфокислотного катионита КУ-2-20, позволяющая сократить количество стадий выделения и химической очистки и получить фармацевтически чистую субстанцию полимиксина В сульфата, соответствующую международным требованиям по качеству, с одновременным повышением выхода конечного продукта до 65%. Список ссылок 1. Newton B.A. / Bacteriol. Rev. 1956. V. 20. No. 1. P. 14-27. 2. Егоров Н.С. Основы учения об антибиотиках. – М.: Изд-во МГУ, 2004. --- 528 с. 3. Щетинин Е.В. / Клин. микробиол. и антимикроб. химиотер. 2000. T. 2. № 3. C. 68-73. 4. Ковалёв В.Ф., Волков И.Б., Виолин Б.В., Ортман Р.А., Хоменко В.С., Хоменко Н.Р. Антибиотики, сульфаниламиды и нитрофураны в ветеринарии: Справочник. – М.: Агропромиздат, 1988. --- 226 с. 5. European Pharmacopoeia 7.0. – Strasbourg: European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare, 2010. V. 2. P. 2753-2754. 6. Мамиофе С.М., Синицына З.Т., Хохлов А.С. Способ получения антибиотика полимиксина. А. с. СССР № 111195. 1957. 7. Bushby S.R.M. Polymyxin Antibiotic and Method of Forming the Same. Canadian Patent #515306. 1955. 8. Maude B.A. Method for Manufacture of Polymyxin. United States Patent #2602041. 1952. 9. Pope C.G., Duffin W.M. Improvements Relating to the Extraction and Purification of an Antibiotic. Great Britain Patent #647925. 1950. 10. Varga I., Bobalova M., Michalkova E., Jakubcova M. Method of Polymyxin Recovery from Fermentation Broth. United States Patent #7951913. 2011. 11. Скрябин К.Г., Джавахия В.В., Глаголева Е.В., Петухов Д.В., Овчинников А.И. Способ получения фармацевтической субстанции полимиксина В. Патент РФ № 2492180. 2013.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.020 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".