MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389282691 · doi:10.15379/ijmst.v10i2.3221

Chiral LC-PDA-ORD Method for The Separation of Linagliptin Enantiomers On Coated Polysaccharide Based Amylose Tris (3, 5-Dimethylphenylcarbamate) Stationary Phases

2023· article· en· W4389282691 on OpenAlexaff
Eegala Bheema Shankar, Challa Gangu Naidu, Subramani Deavaraju, Satwinder Singh Marok, Y. Srinivasa Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Membrane Science and Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsApotex (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnantiomerChromatographyLinagliptinChemistryAmyloseHigh-performance liquid chromatographyTrisAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Organic chemistryStarch

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chiral normal phase high performance liquid chromatographic (chiral-HPLC) was designed and verified for the separation of linagliptin enantiomers using coated polysaccharide chiral stationary phases. The stationary phase was amylose tris (3, 5-dimethylphenylcarbamate) (250x4.6mm, 5 µm), while the mobile phase was a mixture of 50:50:0.1% v/v. With a flow rate of 1 mL/min, orthophosphoric acid was mixed with hexane, isopropyl alcohol, and diethyl amine to achieve a pH of 5.2. The detection was seen at 225 nm. The optical rotatory dispersion (ORD) polarimeter was connected in series to the PDA outlet in order to determine the enantiomer conformation. The linagliptin retention times were found to be 5.454 and 8.772 minutes. Between 3.9 and 23.4 µg/ml, enantiomers were discovered to be linear, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9995. This method was validated in terms of linearity, LOD, LOQ, precision, accuracy, and robustness studies in accordance with ICH requirements. Novelty: The proposed analytical method for the chiral analysis of linagliptin can be used by pharmaceutical industries quality control departments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Membrane Science and TechnologySame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207