| Literature DB >> 35908085 |
Walid Kamal Abdelbasset1,2, Safaa M Elkholi3, Khadiga Ahmed Ismail4, Sameer Alshehri5, Ahmed Alobaida6, Bader Huwaimel7, Ahmed D Alatawi8, Amal M Alsubaiyel9, Kumar Venkatesan10, Mohammed A S Abourehab11,12.
Abstract
Accurate specification of the drugs' solubility is known as an important activity to appropriately manage the supercritical impregnation process. Over the last decades, the application of supercritical fluids (SCFs), mainly CO2, has found great interest as a promising solution to dominate the limitations of traditional methods including high toxicity, difficulty of control, high expense and low stability. Oxaprozin is an efficient off-patent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), which is being extensively used for the pain management of patients suffering from chronic musculoskeletal disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis. In this paper, the prominent purpose of the authors is to predict and consequently optimize the solubility of Oxaprozin inside the CO2SCF. To do this, the authors employed two basic models and improved them with the Adaboost ensemble method. The base models include Gaussian process regression (GPR) and decision tree (DT). We optimized and evaluated the hyper-parameters of them using standard metrics. Boosted DT has an MAE error rate, an R2-score, and an MAPE of 6.806E-05, 0.980, and 4.511E-01, respectively. Also, boosted GPR has an R2-score of 0.998 and its MAPE error is 3.929E-02, and with MAE it has an error rate of 5.024E-06. So, boosted GPR was chosen as the best model, and the best values were: (T = 3.38E + 02, P = 4.0E + 02, Solubility = 0.001241).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35908085 PMCID: PMC9338996 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-17440-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
The Whole Dataset.
| No | Temperature (K) | Pressure (bar) | Solubility (mole fraction) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.08E + 02 | 1.20E + 02 | 8.19E-05 |
| 2 | 3.08E + 02 | 1.60E + 02 | 1.58E-04 |
| 3 | 3.08E + 02 | 2.00E + 02 | 2.24E-04 |
| 4 | 3.08E + 02 | 2.40E + 02 | 2.80E-04 |
| 5 | 3.08E + 02 | 2.80E + 02 | 3.44E-04 |
| 6 | 3.08E + 02 | 3.20E + 02 | 4.06E-04 |
| 7 | 3.08E + 02 | 3.60E + 02 | 4.73E-04 |
| 8 | 3.08E + 02 | 4.00E + 02 | 5.33E-04 |
| 9 | 3.18E + 02 | 1.20E + 02 | 7.55E-05 |
| 10 | 3.18E + 02 | 1.60E + 02 | 1.41E-04 |
| 11 | 3.18E + 02 | 2.00E + 02 | 2.45E-04 |
| 12 | 3.18E + 02 | 2.40E + 02 | 3.56E-04 |
| 13 | 3.18E + 02 | 2.80E + 02 | 4.64E-04 |
| 14 | 3.18E + 02 | 3.20E + 02 | 5.58E-04 |
| 15 | 3.18E + 02 | 3.60E + 02 | 6.60E-04 |
| 16 | 3.18E + 02 | 4.00E + 02 | 7.66E-04 |
| 17 | 3.28E + 02 | 1.20E + 02 | 5.34E-05 |
| 18 | 3.28E + 02 | 1.60E + 02 | 1.28E-04 |
| 19 | 3.28E + 02 | 2.00E + 02 | 3.02E-04 |
| 20 | 3.28E + 02 | 2.40E + 02 | 4.14E-04 |
| 21 | 3.28E + 02 | 2.80E + 02 | 5.82E-04 |
| 22 | 3.28E + 02 | 3.20E + 02 | 7.87E-04 |
| 23 | 3.28E + 02 | 3.60E + 02 | 8.51E-04 |
| 24 | 3.28E + 02 | 4.00E + 02 | 1.03E-03 |
| 25 | 3.38E + 02 | 1.20E + 02 | 3.31E-05 |
| 26 | 3.38E + 02 | 1.60E + 02 | 9.09E-05 |
| 27 | 3.38E + 02 | 2.00E + 02 | 2.98E-04 |
| 28 | 3.38E + 02 | 2.40E + 02 | 4.81E-04 |
| 29 | 3.38E + 02 | 2.80E + 02 | 6.77E-04 |
| 30 | 3.38E + 02 | 3.20E + 02 | 8.89E-04 |
| 31 | 3.38E + 02 | 3.60E + 02 | 1.08E-03 |
| 32 | 3.38E + 02 | 4.00E + 02 | 1.24E-03 |
Figure 1Expected and estimated values (ADA + DT).
Figure 2Expected and estimated values (ADA + GPR).
Final Model Results.
| Models | MAE | R2 | MAPE |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA + DT | 6.806E-05 | 0.980 | 4.511E-01 |
| ADA + GPR | 5.024E-06 | 0.998 | 3.929E-02 |
Figure 3prediction surface in final ADA + GPR.
Figure 4Trends for Pressure.
Figure 5Trends for Temperature.
Optimal Values.
| Temperature (K) | Pressure (bar) | Solubility |
|---|---|---|
| 3.38E + 02 | 4. 0E + 02 | 0.001241 |