Physical Compatibility and Chemical Stability of Injectable and Oral Ranitidine Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The physical compatibility and chemical stability of ranitidine hydrochloride injectable solutions and oral syrup were studied to define beyond-use dates (BUDs). Methods: Ranitidine hydrochloride injectable solutions of 25 mg/mL packaged in glass vials and 5 mg/mL in polypropylene (PP) syringes were prepared in triplicate. Samples were refrigerated and protected from light (PFL) or stored at 25°C and either exposed to light (ETL) or PFL. Ranitidine hydrochloride oral syrup 15 mg/mL in unit-dose amber PP syringes were prepared in triplicate and then kept at 25°C. Samples were collected at days 0, 7, 14, 28, 56, and 91. Additional samples were collected at 6 months and at 6, 9, and 12 months for the 25 mg/mL solution and oral syrup, respectively. Physical parameters of pH, clarity, and color were obtained at each collection time. A validated stability-indicating high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method was used to determine the chemical stability. Results: Formulations had no significant change in pH or clarity. Although some samples yellowed, this was not associated with a decrease in concentration. The 25 mg/mL solution remained above 98.6% for 6 months, whereas the 5 mg/mL solution remained above 93.5% for 91 days under all storage conditions. At 25°C, the oral syrup retained greater than 98.8% for 12 months. Conclusions: The ranitidine hydrochloride injectable solutions were stable for 6 months and 91 days under the 3 storage conditions, respectively, for the 25 mg/mL solution in glass vials and 5 mg/mL solution in PP syringes. The 15 mg/mL oral syrup in unit-dose amber PP syringes was stable for 12 months at 25°C and PFL.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".