Drug-release Assessment of Compounded Topical Nifedipine and Diltiazem in Commonly Used Bases for Wound Healing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine release profiles of extemporaneously compounded nifedipine and diltiazem in commonly used bases in pharmacy practice. Release of nifedipine 0.2%, 2%, and 10% (w/w) from Glaxal Base, K-Y Jelly, and Aquaphor Healing Ointment, and of diltiazem 2% (w/w) from GlaxalBase, hydroxyethyl cellulose-based gel, and white petrolatum was quantified using the Franz-cell diffusion system. The cumulative release was determined at 0.5 hour, 1 hour, 1.5 hours, 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, and 6 hours. Two-way ANOVA with Tukey's posthoc test was used for statistical analyses, with a P-value of <0.05 considered significant. At a 0.2% concentration, cumulative nifedipine release was highest from Glaxal Base. At 2% and 10% concentrations, nifedipine release was highest from K-Y Jelly, although this was only significantly different from Glaxal Base at 6 hours and 1.5 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours (P<0.05), respectively. Diltiazem release from Glaxal Base and white petrolatum was significantly lower than the gel (P<0.05). No significant difference in diltiazem release from Glaxal Base at 0.5 hour was observed versus white petrolatum (P>0.05). Nifedipine and diltiazem release both followed Higuchi's mathematical model with the highest coefficient of determination (R2) for all formulations. Of the bases studies, Glaxal Base is the recommended base for compounding topical nifedipine (0.2%). For higher concentrations of nifedipine (2% and10%), both Glaxal Base and K-Y Jelly are suitable options for base selection. A hydroxyethylcellulose-based gel is recommended for topical diltiazem (2%).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".