↓ Skip to main content

Challenges and Strategies in Thermal Processing of Amorphous Solid Dispersions: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in AAPS PharmSciTech, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 1,566)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
Title
Challenges and Strategies in Thermal Processing of Amorphous Solid Dispersions: A Review
Published in
AAPS PharmSciTech, August 2015
DOI 10.1208/s12249-015-0393-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justin S. LaFountaine, James W. McGinity, Robert O. Williams

Abstract

Thermal processing of amorphous solid dispersions continues to gain interest in the pharmaceutical industry, as evident by several recently approved commercial products. Still, a number of pharmaceutical polymer carriers exhibit thermal or viscoelastic limitations in thermal processing, especially at smaller scales. Additionally, active pharmaceutical ingredients with high melting points and/or that are thermally labile present their own specific challenges. This review will outline a number of formulation and process-driven strategies to enable thermal processing of challenging compositions. These include the use of traditional plasticizers and surfactants, temporary plasticizers utilizing sub- or supercritical carbon dioxide, designer polymers tailored for hot-melt extrusion processing, and KinetiSol® Dispersing technology. Recent case studies of each strategy will be described along with potential benefits and limitations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 154 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 20%
Student > Master 24 15%
Researcher 17 11%
Other 11 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 44 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 59 38%
Chemistry 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Engineering 5 3%
Materials Science 5 3%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 56 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,364,135
of 25,008,338 outputs
Outputs from AAPS PharmSciTech
#34
of 1,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,528
of 273,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AAPS PharmSciTech
#2
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,008,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,566 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.