FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ORODISPERSIBLE TABLETS OF LAMOTRIGINEUSING DISCRETE SUPER DISINTEGRANTS AND COPROCESSED EXCIPIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The present study was designed to formulate and evaluate the orodispersible tablets of lamotrigine after enhancing its solubility. Methods: Lamotrigine was made into an inclusion complex with eudragit E 100 my kneading and mass extrusion method and later this mixture is compressed into orodispersible tablet using various super disintegrants and co-processed excipients to reduce the disintegration time for providing prompt action through rapid drug release. Results: Lamotrigine ODTs containing F-melt (F1-3%, F2-5%) dispersed in lesser time of (9±0.11) and (21±0.58) compared to formulations with polyplasdone XL-10 and primellose as super disintegrants respectively with F1 showing short wetting time. The water absorption was also was found to be more for formulation with 3% F-Melt. Conclusion: Lamotrigine orodispersible tablets were prepared by direct compression technique by using 3% and 5% of three super disintegrants (f-melt, primellose and polyplasdone XL-10). Disintegration time of F1 (3% f-melt) formulation was found to be least (7 sec).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".