A Novel image processing technique for weighted particle size distribution assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to create a reliable method that could be used to evaluate the particle size distribution of samples and pre-mixes in real-world situations, particularly those consisting of typical formulation blends. The goal was to use this method to assess the uniformity of the samples and ensure that they met the required quality standards. The researchers aimed to create a method that could be easily incorporated into the manufacturing process, providing a practical and efficient solution.Significance of reviewThis study demonstrates the use of ImageJ software to analyze the particle size distribution (PSD) of powders. The technique produces qualitative data from microscopy images and quantitative data from analysis of parameters including average diameter, D10, D50, D90, and standard deviation. The method was tested with various treatments, showing differentiating outcomes in all cases.Key findingsThe alternate technique provides a rapid and cost-effective method for PSD analysis, surpassing the limitations of sieve analysis. Extensive testing of the method, using a variety of sample types, including typical formulation blends, was performed. The results suggest that the method can effectively assess the morphology of changing materials during batch manufacturing and characterize uniformity in blends.ConclusionsThe methodology has the capability to identify attributes related to PSD that are typically required to be monitored during manufacturing. The technique allows for accurate and reliable quantification of the attributes through image capture technology. The technique has future potential and has important implications for material science, powder rheology, pharmaceutical formulation development, and continual process monitoring.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".