<i>In Vivo</i> Precipitation of Poorly Soluble Drugs from Lipid-Based Drug Delivery Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precipitation of poorly water-soluble drugs from lipid-based drug delivery systems (LbDDS) has been studied extensively during in vitro lipolysis but has never been shown in vivo. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate if drug precipitation can occur from LbDDS during transit of the gastrointestinal tract in vivo. Rats were administered 300 μL of either of two LbDDS (LbDDS I and LbDDS II) loaded with danazol or fenofibrate (or paracetamol to assess gastric emptying). The rats were euthanized at various time points after administration of both LbDDS containing either drug, and the contents of the stomach and proximal part of the small intestine were harvested. The contents were analyzed for crystalline drug by X-ray powder diffraction and polarized light microscopy. No drug precipitation was evident in the stomach or the intestine after administration of LbDDS I containing danazol at the tested time points. Fenofibrate precipitation was absent in the stomach initially after administration of LbDDS I, but was evident in the stomach 90 min after dosing. No crystalline fenofibrate was observed in the intestine. Danazol and fenofibrate precipitation was evident in the stomach following administration of LbDDS II containing either drug, but not in the intestine at the tested time point. Drug precipitation from LbDDS was observed in the stomach, but not in the intestine, which is contrary to what in vitro lipolysis data (obtained under human GI conditions) suggests. Thus, precipitation of drugs from LbDDS in vivo in rats is much lower than might be anticipated from in vitro lipolysis data.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".