AI for Pharmaceutical Materials

AI for Pharmaceutical Solid Form Development

Select a solid form with a defensible balance of stability, solubility, manufacturability, and formulation compatibility. CD ComputaBio combines molecular modeling, solid-state informatics, experimental evidence, and risk-based decision design to guide polymorph, salt, cocrystal, amorphous, and crystallization programs.

Discuss Your Solid Form Program Explore Development Routes

Support can begin from an API structure, an initial solid batch, screening results, or a late-stage solid-form problem.

Solid-Form Decision

The lowest-energy crystal is not always the best drug-product form

A development form must survive storage and processing while meeting dissolution, bioavailability, manufacturability, and intellectual- property objectives. These requirements may favor different regions of the solid-state landscape.

We structure the program around the decision that must be made, the evidence needed to support it, and the risks that remain after selection.

What solid forms are accessible?

Polymorphs, hydrates, solvates, salts, cocrystals, amorphous phases, and mixtures.

Landscape

Which form meets the product target?

Solubility, dissolution, stability, hygroscopicity, particle behavior, and processing constraints.

Candidate set

Where can the form change?

Crystallization, drying, milling, granulation, storage, formulation, and dissolution conditions.

Risk map

What evidence supports selection?

Structural, thermal, sorption, solubility, transformation, and process-relevant measurements.

Development case

Solid-Form Development Routes

Six development services from form discovery to process control

Each route addresses a distinct pharmaceutical development question and can be used independently or as part of a staged solid-form development program.

ROUTE 01 Crystal-form landscape discovery

Polymorph Screening

Explore polymorphs, hydrates, solvates, desolvated forms, and amorphous phases across solvent, temperature, supersaturation, cooling, evaporation, and stress conditions.

View service →

Typical decision evidence

Form diversity and phase identification
Relative stability and transformation relationships
Late-appearing polymorph risk

ROUTE 02 Ionization-based form strategy

Salt Form Selection

Prioritize counterions and salt-form conditions according to ionization, lattice formation, solubility, stability, hygroscopicity, and downstream manufacturability.

View service →

Typical decision evidence

pKa and ionization relationships
Counterion compatibility and salt propensity
Solubility, moisture, and conversion risk

ROUTE 03 Supramolecular partner selection

Cocrystal Design

Identify coformers and interaction motifs that may alter dissolution, mechanical behavior, stability, or developability without requiring API ionization.

View service →

Typical decision evidence

Hydrogen-bond and synthon analysis
Coformer ranking and interaction complementarity
Stoichiometry and dissociation considerations

ROUTE 04 Supersaturation and stabilization

Amorphous Solid Dispersion

Evaluate polymer selection, drug–polymer interactions, miscibility, loading, glass-transition behavior, moisture sensitivity, and recrystallization risk.

View service →

Typical decision evidence

API–polymer compatibility
Miscibility and phase-separation risk
Recrystallization and storage sensitivity

ROUTE 05 Formulation contact-risk assessment

API–Excipient Compatibility

Assess molecular interactions, moisture-mediated changes, acid–base effects, reactive liabilities, adsorption, and solid-state conversion risks in candidate formulations.

View service →

Typical decision evidence

Interaction and reactivity flags
Moisture and microenvironmental risks
Excipient shortlist and test priorities

ROUTE 06 Process-controlled form isolation

Crystallization Process Development

Connect solvent, supersaturation, nucleation, growth, seeding, temperature, antisolvent, and drying choices with form purity and particle attributes.

View service →

Typical decision evidence

Solvent and supersaturation strategy
Nucleation and transformation windows
Scale-up-sensitive process parameters

Development Stage Gates

Advance a solid form only when the next risk is understood

The program moves from landscape definition to product and process readiness through explicit decision gates rather than a single ranking score.

Gate 1 · Landscape

Confirm form diversity

Map plausible polymorphs, hydrates, solvates, salts, cocrystals, and amorphous states relevant to the API.

Do we understand which forms may exist and interconvert?

Gate 2 · Selection

Choose viable candidates

Compare stability, solubility, dissolution, hygroscopicity, mechanical behavior, and isolation feasibility.

Which form best matches the target product profile?

Gate 3 · Stress

Challenge the selected form

Evaluate temperature, humidity, solvent, pressure, milling, excipients, and aqueous exposure.

Where can the form convert or lose performance?

Gate 4 · Control

Define the control strategy

Establish form-specific attributes, process windows, analytical distinctions, and monitoring priorities.

Can the form be made and maintained reproducibly?

Evidence Integration

Translate solid-state measurements into development decisions

Individual analytical results rarely select a form on their own. We interpret complementary measurements together and relate them to the product, process, and storage questions they can actually answer.

Evidence source

What it helps characterize

Development use

XRPD / SCXRD

Crystal identity, phase purity, lattice arrangement

Distinguish forms and monitor conversion

DSC / TGA

Melting, transitions, desolvation, decomposition

Assess thermal relationships and processing limits

DVS / humidity stress

Water uptake, hydrate formation, moisture response

Define handling and storage risk

Solubility / dissolution

Thermodynamic and kinetic performance

Compare exposure-enabling potential and conversion

Spectroscopy / microscopy

Local interactions, morphology, mixed or disordered phases

Support structural interpretation and failure analysis

Computational modeling

Lattice, interactions, form propensity, molecular descriptors

Prioritize experiments and interpret incomplete evidence

Flexible Scope

Enter the program at the stage where uncertainty is highest

The study can begin before material is available, during experimental screening, or after a form or process problem has emerged.

Structure-led start

API structure available

Use molecular properties and known chemistry to plan the initial solid-form search.

Ionization and interaction analysis
Forming-partner or polymer prioritization
Screening-space design

Evidence-led start

Screening data available

Integrate solid-state results and compare candidates against the development target.

Form classification and relationship mapping
Candidate ranking with uncertainty
Targeted gap-filling experiments

Problem-led start

Conversion or process failure

Work backward from an unexpected phase, unstable batch, or inconsistent crystallization outcome.

Root-cause hypothesis generation
Transformation-risk assessment
Corrective process or formulation plan

Solid-Form Development Dossier

Deliverables organized around selection, risk, and control

The final package is designed to help scientific teams defend the selected development route and plan the next experimental or process milestone.

Decision-ready output

Solid-Form Dossier

Project-specific evidence, recommendations, assumptions, and remaining risks in one development-focused package.

01 Form landscape

Plausible and observed forms, relationships, and relevant transformation pathways.

02 Candidate comparison

Stability, performance, processing, and formulation trade-offs across shortlisted forms.

03 Risk register

Conversion triggers, moisture and thermal risks, evidence gaps, and confidence limits.

04 Development plan

Recommended experiments, analytical controls, process variables, and decision criteria.

Frequently Asked Questions

Planning a pharmaceutical solid-form project

Can the project start before a physical API sample is available?

Yes. A structure-led phase can evaluate ionization, intermolecular interaction potential, likely solid-form risks, coformer or counterion options, and an initial experimental screening design. Predictions should then be updated as physical material and analytical data become available.

How is polymorph screening different from crystal structure prediction?

Crystal structure prediction explores plausible lattice arrangements computationally. Polymorph screening is broader and includes experimental generation, isolation, characterization, and comparison of forms. Computational prediction can guide a screen but does not replace experimental confirmation.

When should salt or cocrystal screening be considered?

Salt screening is most relevant when the API contains suitable ionizable groups. Cocrystals may be considered when nonionic intermolecular interactions can be used to modify performance or when salt formation is unsuitable. The choice should reflect the target product profile and development risks.

Can amorphous solid dispersion be assessed alongside crystalline forms?

Yes. Crystalline and amorphous strategies can be compared against common criteria such as dissolution advantage, physical stability, moisture sensitivity, drug loading, processing constraints, and formulation complexity.

Can proprietary XRPD, DSC, solubility, and crystallization data be incorporated?

Yes. Client-generated analytical and process data can be organized, compared, and incorporated into project-specific form selection, transformation-risk, and crystallization-development analyses under the agreed confidentiality framework.

Online Inquiry

Submit your project details below, and our team will respond within 24 hours.