ArticlePharmaceutical research2025
Predicting Powder Blend Flowability from Individual Constituent Properties Using Machine Learning.
Article in Pharmaceutical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Assisted Pharmaceutical Formulation Design: Comparative Development and Experimental Evaluation of Sustained-Release Lornoxicam Tablets.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development and Evaluation of Tofacitinib Tablets with Comparative Dissolution and Pharmacokinetic Studies in Beagle Dogs.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Article
- Accelerated drug development using a digital formulator and a self-driving tableting data factory.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Rapid and Efficient Aerosol Delivery During 60 L/min High Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy-In Vitro Development of a Novel Dry Powder Delivery Platform.AAPS PharmSciTech · 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
Abstract
purposePredicting powder blend flowability is necessary for pharmaceutical manufacturing but challenging and resource-intensive. The purpose was to develop machine learning (ML) models to help predict flowability across multiple flow categories, identify key predictive features, and arrive at formulations with improved flow properties.
methodsA dataset of 410 blends, composed of 9 active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and 18 excipients with varying silica dry-coating parameters, was analyzed. Supervised ML models were trained to predict various flowability categories (very cohesive, cohesive, semi-cohesive, well-flowing, and free-flowing). Particle size, morphology, surface properties, and coating parameters were used as features. Classification algorithms, including Random Forest (RF) and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), were evaluated. Unsupervised clustering identified natural groupings within flowability data.
resultsThe best-performing models achieved up to 85% accuracy for predicting flowability regimes of individual components and 87% for blends. Individual components generally showed higher accuracy than blends, except in the uncoated scenario with 2 flow regimes, where blends outperformed with 94.67%. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and Feature Importance analysis indicated dry coating parameters as the most influential factors, followed by particle size and morphology. ML models effectively identified category transitions between flow regimes, offering insights into blend optimization.
conclusionIntegrating ML with mechanistic approaches effectively predicted powder blend flowability across diverse categories and elucidated feature-property relationships. These outcomes can facilitate the rational design of blends having enhanced flow properties at reduced experimental effort through judiciously selected dry coating of a blend constituent; making this approach promising for advancing pharmaceutical process and product development.
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.