Biopolymer Substrates in Buccal Drug Delivery: Current Status and Future Trend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper provides a critical review of biopolymer-based substrates, especially the cellulose derivatives, for their application in buccal drug delivery. Drug delivery to the buccal mucous has the benefits of immobile muscle, abundant vascularization and rapid recovery, but not all the drugs can be administered through the buccal mucosa (e.g., macromolecular drugs), due to the low bioavailability caused by their large molecular size. This shortfall inspired the rapid development of drug-compounding technologies and the corresponding usage of biopolymer substrates. METHODS: Cellulose derivatives have been extensively developed for drug manufacturing to facilitate its delivery. We engaged in structured research of cellulose-based drug compounding technologies. We summarized the characteristic cellulose derivatives which have been used as the biocompatible substrates in buccal delivery systems. The discussion of potential use of the rapidly-developed nanocellulose (NC) is also notable in this paper. RESULTS: Seventy-eight papers were referenced in this perspective paper with the majority (sixty-five) published later than 2010. Forty-seven papers defined the buccal drug delivery systems and their substrates. Fifteen papers outlined the properties and applications of cellulose derivatives. Nanocellulose was introduced as a leading edge of nanomaterial with sixteen papers highlighted its adaptability in drug compounding for buccal delivery. CONCLUSION: The findings of this perspective paper proposed the potential use of cellulose derivatives, the typical kind of biopolymers, in the buccal drug delivery system for promoting the bioavailability of macromolecular drugs. Nanocellulose (NC) in particular was proposed as an innovative bio-binder/carrier for the controlled-release of drugs in buccal system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".