Effect of taste masking technology on fast dissolving oral film: dissolution rate and bioavailability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fast dissolving oral film is a stamp-style, drug-loaded polymer film with rapid disintegration and dissolution. This new kind of drug delivery system requires effective taste masking technology. Suspension intermediate and liposome intermediate were prepared, respectively, for the formulation of two kinds of fast dissolving oral films with the aim of studying the effect of taste masking technology on the bioavailability of oral films. Loratadine was selected as the model drug. The surface pH of the films was close to neutral, avoiding oral mucosal irritation or side effects. The thickness of a 2 cm × 2 cm suspension oral film containing 10 mg of loratadine was 100 μm. Electron microscope analysis showed that liposomes were spherical before and after re-dissolution, and drugs with obvious bitterness could be masked by the encapsulation of liposomes. Dissolution of the two films was superior to that of the commercial tablets. Rat pharmacokinetic experiments showed that the oral bioavailability of the suspension film was significantly higher than that of the commercial tablets, and the relative bioavailability of the suspension film was 175%. Liposomal film produced a certain amount of improvement in bioavailability, but lower than that of the suspension film.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".