Pharmaceutical Analytics: Methods of Analysis of Medicinal Products and their Quality Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of evaluating the quality of medicinal products is determined by their impact on public health, therefore there are many analytical methods for controlling the chemical composition and bioequivalence of medicines. Falsification of medicines and determining the composition of generics also remain a serious problem, therefore the search and systematization of modern methods of identifying the quality of medicines and methods of combating illegal medicines are relevant and timely. The purpose of the study is to determine effective methods of assessing the quality of medicines and methods of combating falsified medicines, which would meet the country’s demands in conditions of war and economic crisis. The research used methods of analysis, synthesis, systematization, statistical comparison of groups using Student’s t-test, survey and generalization of results. The obtained results revealed alternative methods of quality control of medicinal products in the conditions of economic and war crisis. We identified the prospect of introducing drug marking and assisting pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors in drug marking. A low level of awareness of the population regarding the methods of assessing the quality of medicinal products and the algorithm of actions in case of detection of low-quality medicinal products was revealed. Among the doctors, there was also an insufficient level of knowledge regarding the assessment of the quality of medicines, which requires the introduction of training of doctors in this field and educational work among the population.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".