Preparation of tranexamic acid transfersomes and investigation on their characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To optimize the formulation and prepration of tranexamic acid(TA) transfersomes by central composite design-response surface method. Methods The transfersomes were prepared using the reverse rotary evaporation method. The effects of phosphatidylcholine(SPC)-cholesterol(CH) ratio, SPC-drug ratio, and the concentration of sodium deoxycholic acid on the entrapment efficiency(EE) were investigated, the results were fitted with binomial equation, and the optimal formulation was predicted by response surface method. Results The preparation conditions were optimized as SPC-CH(2∶1), SPC-drug(6∶1), and the concentration of sodium deoxycholic acid 20 mg. Under these conditions, the evaluated EE, drug-loading, average partical size, and Zeta potential of TA transfersomes were(81.28 ± 1.06)%,(4.67 ± 0.28)%,(105.3 ± 7.2) nm, and( 38.5 ± 2.3) mV. The deviation of measured and predicated values was smaller. Conclusion The central composite design-response surface method is applicable for the optimization of TA transfersomes and the resulting optimal preparation technique is stable and feasible.
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) | 0.001 | 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".