Naproxen-Loaded Poly(2-hydroxyalkyl methacrylates): Preparation and Drug Release Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poly(2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate)/Naproxen (NPX/pHEMA) and poly (2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate)/Naproxen (NPX/pHPMA) composites with different NPX content were prepared in situ by free radical photopolymerization route. The resulted hybrid materials were characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), scanning Electron microscopy (SEM), and X-ray diffraction (XRD). These composites have been studied as drug carrier systems, in which a comparison of the in vitro release dynamic of NPX between the two drug carrier systems has been conducted. Different factors affecting the performance of the release dynamic of this drug, such as the amount of Naproxen incorporated in the drug carrier system, the pH of the medium and the degree of swelling, have been investigated. The results of the swelling study of pHEMA and pHPMA in different media pHs revealed that the diffusion of water molecules through both polymer samples obeys the Fickian model. The "in vitro" study of the release dynamic of Naproxen from NPX/pHEMA and NPX/pHPMA drug carrier systems revealed that the higher percentage of NPX released was obtained from each polymer carrier in neutral pH medium, and the diffusion of NPX trough these polymer matrices also obeys the Fickian model. It was also found that the less the mass percent of NPX in the composites, the better its release will be. The comparison between the two drug carrier systems revealed that the pHEMA leads to the best performance in the release dynamic of NPX. Regarding Naproxen solubility in water, the results deducted from the "in vitro" study of NPX/pHEMA10 and NPX/pHPMA10 drug carrier systems revealed a very significant improvement in the solubility of NPX in media pH1 (2.33 times, 1.43 times) and 7 (3.32 times, 2.60 times), respectively, compared to those obtained by direct dissolution of Naproxen powder.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".