Enhancing Cannabidiol Bioavailability: Development and Evaluation of an Amorphous Cannabidiol Powder Formulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the various beneficial properties of cannabidiol (CBD), such as antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antidepressant, and anxiolytic activities, its clinical utility is limited due to its notably low bioavailability (BA). To address this issue, we developed an amorphous CBD powder formulation using solvent shift method, which only uses materials approved for food-grade applications. In a pharmacokinetic study in male Sprague–Dawley rats, we orally administered 10 mg/kg of CBD isolate powder with a crystalline structure and our developed amorphous CBD powder formulation. The Cmax values demonstrated a 3.9-fold increase for the amorphous CBD powder formulation containing polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) as a polymer (F3) and a 3.0-fold increase for the amorphous CBD powder formulation containing hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) as a polymer (F4) compared to the CBD isolate powder. Furthermore, the AUC0–6h values for F3 and F4 were 5.3- and 5.2-fold higher than those for CBD isolate powder, respectively, indicating a significant enhancement. The Tmax values were also significantly shorter for F3 and F4, at 0.9±0.1 h and 0.8±0.1 h, respectively, compared to >6.0 h for CBD isolate powder. These findings demonstrate the superior BA of the amorphous CBD formulation. Based on these results, the amorphous CBD formulation is expected to be a highly absorbable CBD formulation, thereby advancing its use in food and supplements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".