Stability of Compounded Topical Nifedipine in Cream, Gel, and Ointment Bases.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the stability of compounded nifedipine cream in gel and ointment formulations dispensed in white plastic and glass amber jars. Extemporaneously compounded nifedipine cream (Glaxal Base), gel (K-Y Jelly), and ointment (Aquaphor) in white plastic and glass amber jars were stored at 4°C, 23°C, and 40°C. We determined potency on days 0, 7, 14, 30, 60, and 90, and subsequently assigned beyond-use-dates based on United States Pharmacopeia recommendations, organoleptic properties, and pH changes. Nifedipine potency in cream and ointment stored in white plastic jars was within ±10% of initial for 90 days (excluding day 14 for cream). In glass amber jars, potency was outside the acceptable range by day 14 at 23°C but within range for 90 days at 4°C (excluding day 30). Nifedipine potency was maintained for 90 days in both jars at 23°C and 4°C (excluding day 30) and in white plastic jars at 40°C, but 60 days stored in glass amber jars. The pH of formulations was stable with changes of less than 1-unit pH. At 40°C, a significant decrease in apparent viscosity of cream was evident on day 90. There was a decrease in apparent viscosity and phase separation of the ointment at 40°C and an increase in apparent viscosity (difficult to mix) at 4°C on day 14 onwards. Significant organoleptic changes were observed by day 7 at 40°C (decrease in apparent viscosity and abnormal odor by day 90), day 30 at 4°C (thicker consistency), and day 90 at 23°C (abnormal odor). Storage in white plastic jars at 23°C is recommended for compounded topical nifedipine cream and ointment (for 90 days), and for gel (60 days).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".