Phase Separation Behavior of Fusidic Acid and Rifampicin in PLGA Microspheres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to characterize the phase separation behavior of fusidic acid (FA) and rifampicin (RIF) in poly(d,l-lactic acid-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) using a model microsphere formulation. To accomplish this, microspheres containing 20% FA with 0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 30% RIF and 20% RIF with 30%, 20% 10%, 5%, and 0% FA were prepared by solvent evaporation. Drug-polymer and drug-drug compatibility and miscibility were characterized using laser confocal microscopy, Raman spectroscopy, XRPD, DSC, and real-time video recordings of single-microsphere formation. The encapsulation of FA and RIF alone, or in combination, results in a liquid-liquid phase separation of solvent-and-drug-rich microdomains that are excluded from the polymer bulk during microsphere hardening, resulting in amorphous spherical drug-rich domains within the polymer bulk and on the microsphere surface. FA and RIF phase separate from PLGA at relative droplet volumes of 0.311 ± 0.014 and 0.194 ± 0.000, respectively, predictive of the incompatibility of each drug and PLGA. When coloaded, FA and RIF phase separate in a single event at the relative droplet volume 0.251 ± 0.002, intermediate between each of the monoloaded formulations and dependent on the relative contribution of FA or RIF. The release of FA and RIF from phase-separated microspheres was characterized exclusively by a burst release and was dependent on the phase exclusion of surface drug-rich domains. Phase separation results in coalescence of drug-rich microdroplets and polymer phase exclusion, and it is dependent on the compatibility between FA and RIF and PLGA. FA and RIF are mutually miscible in all proportions as an amorphous glass, and they phase separate from the polymer as such. These drug-rich domains were excluded to the surface of the microspheres, and subsequent release of both drugs from the microspheres was rapid and reflected this surface location.
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) | 0.000 | 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".