MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406444807 · doi:10.1016/j.ejps.2025.107020

Vitamins as excipients in pharmaceutical products

2025· review· en· W4406444807 on OpenAlexaff
Anne-Cécile V. Bayne, Jenni Pessi, Julia K. Bird, René T. Stemmler, Margarita Frerichs, Ahmed Besheer

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsBirds Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryBusinessFood scienceBiochemical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Excipients are ingredients in pharmaceutical products other than the active ingredient, added to facilitate manufacturing, enhance stability or modulate release and bioavailability. Vitamins are diverse molecules essential for human nutrition that also can fulfil excipient functions. This review focuses on vitamins used as excipients and provides an overview of the functions of vitamins in various pharmaceutical formulations. A thorough search was conducted to understand the current use of vitamins in marketed drug products, concluding that many vitamins are already used as functional excipients. Vitamins are used widely in different dosage forms, including oral, parenteral, and topical formulations, and alongside a broad range of active pharmaceutical ingredients, biologics, and small molecules from different biopharmaceutical classification system classes. Many examples of the use of vitamins to improve the performance of the pharmaceutical formulation in which they are included are presented and the mode of action of vitamins as excipients in the product is reviewed. Furthermore, the potential for future uses of vitamins in pharmaceutical products is highlighted. Lastly, considerations for the use of vitamins as excipients in drug products as well as the regulatory framework are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207