<i>In vivo</i> and <i>in vitro</i> palatability testing of a new paediatric formulation of valaciclovir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The palatability of a new paediatric formulation of valaciclovir was assessed in children and their parents: non-inferiority of the new paediatric formulation (test formulation) compared to the reference formulation was investigated. METHODS: In vivo palatability testing was performed in a randomized, two-period, multicentre, cross-over study. Children and their parents scored the liking of the new paediatric valaciclovir formulation and the reference formulation on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). To support formulation development and palatability testing, electronic tongue measurements were applied. RESULTS: The electronic tongue measurement indicated taste-masking capabilities for three different formulations in the developmental phase. A glycerol-based formulation was further tested and compared to the reference formulation prepared out of crushed and suspended tablets. The mean difference (95% CI) in VAS scores between both formulations, as indicated by the children (n = 20), was 2.4 (-8.5, 13) mm, in favour of the new paediatric valaciclovir formulation. The mean (95% CI) difference in VAS scores indicated by the parents (n = 20) was -0.9 (-12, 9.8) mm. CONCLUSION: The palatability of the new paediatric valaciclovir formulation was considered non-inferior to the reference formulation prepared out of crushed tablets. We were able to optimize the study design and number of children to be included in the palatability testing by using electronic tongue measurements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".