MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947261294 · doi:10.25258/ijpqa.10.1.4

Development of Stability Indicating RP-HPLC Method for Simultaneous Estimation of Amlodipine and Olmesartan in Pure and Pharmaceutical Dosage Form

2019· article· en· W2947261294 on OpenAlexaff
Dhiraj Kumar, Sushant Kumar Panda, Sudhir Kumar Sahoo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Methods in Pharmaceuticals
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlmesartanAmlodipineChromatographyHigh-performance liquid chromatographyChemistryParticle sizeAcetonitrileMedicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple reverse phase HPLC method was developed for the simultaneous estimation of Amlodipine and Olmesartan in bulk and tablet form. Chromatography was performed by isocratic reverse phase separation on a stainless steel column 4.6 x 150mm, symmetry column packed with octa decyl silane bonded to porous silica (C18) with particle size 5 micron with mobile phase containing TEA Buffer of pH 3.0 and Acetonitrile in proportion of 25:75 respectively. The flow rate was 1.0 ml/ min and effluent was monitored at 258 nm. The retention times were 2.39 min and 3.33 min respectively. The standard curve was linear over a working range of 05–35 µg/ml for both Amlodipine and Olmesartan and gave an average correlation coefficient of 0.999, and 0.999 for Amlodipine and Olmesartan respectively. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) of this method was 2µg/ml for Amlodipine and Olmesartan. The absolute recovery was 100% for Amlodipine and 100.3 for Olmesartan. Degradation products produced as a result of stress studies did not interfere with the detection of Amlodipine and Olmesartan and the assay can thus be considered stability-indicating.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.403 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Pharmaceutical Quality AssuranceSame topicAnalytical Methods in PharmaceuticalsFrench-language works237,207