Stability evaluation of compounded hydroxyurea 100 mg/mL oral liquids using a novel analytical method involving chemical derivatization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the stability of six extemporaneously compounded hydroxyurea oral liquids stored at room temperature. Hydroxyurea oral liquids (100 mg/mL) were prepared using three different mixing methods (mortar, mixer or QuartetRx) from either bulk powder, capsule content, or whole capsules. Two brands of capsules were tested in this study. All formulations were stored at room temperature (25°C / 60% RH) in amber plastic bottles for 90 days and amber plastic syringes for 14 days. Physical stability was assessed visually, while chemical stability was evaluated using a stability-indicating high-performance liquid chromatography method. Chemical derivatization with xanthydrol allowed the retention of hydroxyurea on a reverse-phase column. At least 93.9% and 97.0% of the initial concentration of hydroxyurea remained after 90 days in bottles and 14 days in syringes, respectively. There were no visual changes in formulations over the study period. Changes in pH up to 1.6 units were observed after 90 days of storage and were explained most likely by an ammonium generating degradation pathway. Ammonium was quantified and remained within safe levels in each HU 100 mg/mL oral preparations. Hydroxyurea oral liquids were all stable for 90 days in amber plastic bottles and 14 days in amber plastic syringes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".