4.7 Article

Use of machine learning in prediction of granule particle size distribution and tablet tensile strength in commercial pharmaceutical manufacturing

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.121146

关键词

Particle size distribution; Tensile strength; Machine learning; Quality prediction; Commercial manufacturing; Advanced data analytics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, predictive machine learning models were used to predict Particle Size Distribution (PSD) and Tensile Strength (TS) for a commercial tablet product, aiming to indicate product quality. Feature importance and partial dependence were utilized to evaluate parameter importance and impact on predicted TS. The study demonstrates the ability of machine learning models to enhance product-related knowledge and bring additional value for commercial products.
In the manufacturing of pharmaceutical Oral Solid Dosage (OSD) forms, Particle Size Distribution (PSD) and Tensile Strength (TS) are common in-process tests that are controlled in order to achieve the quality targets of the end-product. The Quality by Design (QbD) concept elaborates process understanding and sufficient controls. However, for older pharmaceutical products upscaled to commercial phase with Quality by Testing (QbT) approach, the knowhow of the product-specific critical parameters is often limited. In this study, two predictive machine learning (ML) models were used for a commercial tablet product, for which historical data of raw materials, production, in-process controls and condition monitoring were available. With the aforementioned data, the aim was to predict the PSD and the TS that indicate the product quality. The feature importance was used to evaluate the parameter importance for the PSD and the TS. Partial dependence, in turn, was used to estimate the parameter impact on the predicted TS. The study illustrates the capability of the ML models to bring additional value for commercial products through the enhanced product-related knowhow.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据