<i>In Vitro</i>Evaluation of a Device for Intra-Pulmonary Aerosol Generation and Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For infants born with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), liquid bolus delivery of surfactant administered through an endotracheal tube is common practice. While this method is generally effective, complications such as transient hypoxia, hypercapnia, and altered cerebral blood flow may occur. Aerosolized surfactant therapy has been explored as an alternative. Unfortunately, past efforts have led to disappointing results as aerosols were generated outside the lungs with significant pharyngeal deposition and minimal intrapulmonary instillation. A novel aerosol generator (Microjet™) is evaluated herein for intrapulmonary aerosol generation within an endotracheal tube and tested with Curosurf and Infasurf surfactants. Compared with other aerosol delivery devices, this process utilizes low air flow (range 0.01-0.2 L/min) that is ideal for limiting potential barotrauma to the premature newborn lung. The mass mean diameter (MMD) of the particles for both tested surfactants was less than 4 μm, which is ideal for both uniform and distal lung delivery. As an indicator of phospholipid function, surfactant surface tension was measured before and after aerosol formation; with no significant difference. Moreover, this device has an outside diameter of <1mm, which permits insertion into an endotracheal tube (of even 2.0 mm). In the premature infant where intravenous access is either technically challenging or difficult, aerosol drug delivery may provide an alternative route in patient resuscitation, stabilization and care. Other potential applications of this type of device include the delivery of nutrients, antibiotics, and analgesics via the pulmonary route.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".