ArticleBMC chemistry2024
Spectrophotometric determination of olanzapine, fluoxetine HCL and its impurity using univariate and chemometrics methods reinforced by latin hypercube sampling: Validation and eco-friendliness assessments.
Article in BMC chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Normalized vs factorized spectra: comparative spectrophotometric approaches for enhancing the resolution of zero-order absorption spectra of olanzapine and fluoxetine in mixtures.BMC chemistry · 2026Article
- Environmentally sustainable UV spectrophotometric-chemometric approach for simultaneous determination of budesonide, glycopyrrolate, and formoterol.BMC chemistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Novel univariate and chemometrics-aided UV spectrophotometric methods were tailored to undergo the fundamentals of green and white analytical chemistry for the simultaneous estimation of a ternary mixture of olanzapine (OLA), fluoxetine HCL (FLU), and its toxic impurity 4-(Trifluoromethyl) phenol (FMP) without any prior separation. The dual-wavelength ratio spectrum univariate method was used to determine OLA and FLU in the presence of FMP in the range of (4-20) and (5-50) μg/ml, respectively. In compliance with the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) standards, the technique was validated and established Remarkable accuracy (98-102%) and precision (< 2%) with limits of quantification (LOQs) of 0.432 and 2.002 μg/ml, respectively. Partial least squares (PLS) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) are chemometric methodologies that have advantages over the univariate method and use significant innovations employing Latin hypercube sampling (LHS), allowing the generation of a reliable validation set to guarantee the effectiveness and sustainability of these models. The concentration ranges used were (2-20), (2-20), and (5-50) μg/ml; for PLS, the LOQs were 0.602, 0.508, and 1.429 μg/ml, and the root mean square errors of prediction (RMSEPs) were 0.087, 0.048, and 0.159 for OLA, FMP, and FLU, respectively; and for ANNs, the LOQs were 0.551, 0.465, and 0.965 μg/ml, with RMSEPs of 0.056, 0.047, and 0.087 for OLA, FMP, and FLU, respectively. The developed methods yield a greener National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI) with an eco-scale assessment (ESA) score of 90 and a complementary Green Analytical Procedure Index (complex GAPI) in quadrants with an analytical greenness metric (AGREE) score of 0.8. The Red‒Green-Blue 12 algorithm (RGB 12) scored 88.9, outperforming on reported methods and demonstrating widespread practical and environmental approval. Statistical analysis revealed no noteworthy differences (P > 0.05) among the proposed and published techniques. Both pure powders and pharmaceutical capsules were analyzed via these methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.