Transdermal formulations of deprenyl: guinea pig and pig models.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of many drugs relies on their presence at the site of action over a period of time. The retardation or programmed release capability of the conventional dosage forms like oral and parenteral are limited and toxic and undesired side-effects may occur after their applications. These problems may be solved using transdermal delivery systems. Transdermal systems are aimed for local, or systemic action. In the letter case controlling the rate of delivery or modulating the distribution in the organism. The selection of an adequate biological method of evaluating a new transdermal formulation is a critical point of the development. The in vitro methods can help in the characterization of the different formulas, but without an in vivo disposition study they cannot give relevant information about the expectable therapeutic behavior. We adapted and improved an in vivo test system for the evaluation of new transdermal particulate systems (patches) and liposomes containing deprenyl selegiline as active ingredient. The in vivo evaluation system consists of two steps: 1. Full biodisposition study on guinea pig, using isotope labeled selegiline. 2. Biodisposition studies on domestic pigs including dose, area, surface dependence and comparative bioavailability with traditional dosage forms and application moods. Specific examples of these studies and experimental technology are presented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".