ArticleAAPS PharmSciTech2026
Decoding Formulation Complexity: Comparative Performance of Statistical, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence Models in Intelligent Nano Depot (iNDEP) Design.
Article in AAPS PharmSciTech, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly explored to improve predictive modelling and optimization in pharmaceutical formulation development. This study compared predictive performance of conventional statistical approaches and AI/ML-based models using an experimentally generated dataset from PLGA-mPEG-based Intelligent Nano Depot (iNDEP), smart depot forming long-acting injectable system for sustained co-delivery of Memantine hydrochloride (MH) and Galantamine hydrobromide (GH). Central Composite Design (CCD) dataset of 17 experimental formulations were employed to develop predictive models. The % cumulative drug release (CDR), implant formation time and particle size were measured to determine effects of PLGA-mPEG, Span 80 and Tween 80. Design of Experiments (DoE), SPSS-based Multiple Linear Regression (MLR), Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and ML workflows in Orange Data Mining and KNIME Analytics Platform were used to produce predictive models. Root mean squared error (RMSE), mean squared error (MSE), and coefficient of determination (R
Indexed as
Identifiers
42919080What 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.