An Apparatus to Deliver Mannitol Powder for Bronchial Provocation in Children Under Six Years Old
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently bronchial provocation testing (BPT) using mannitol powder cannot be performed in children under 6 years. A primary reason is it is challenging for children at this age to generate a consistent inspiratory effort to inhale mannitol efficiently from a dry powder inhaler. A prototype system, which does not require any inhalation training from the pediatric subject, is reported here. It uses an external source of compressed air to disperse mannitol powder into a commercial holding chamber. Then the subject uses tidal breathing to inhale the aerosol. METHOD: The setup consists of a commercially available powder disperser and Volumatic™ holding chamber. Taguchi experimental design was used to identify the effect of dispersion parameters (flow rate of compressed air, time compressed air is applied, mass of powder, and the time between dispersion and inhalation) on the fine particle dose (FPD). The prototype was tested in vitro using a USP throat connected to a next generation impactor. The aerosols from the holding chamber were drawn at 10 L/min. A scaling factor for estimating the provoking dose to induce a 15% reduction in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (PD15) was calculated using anatomical dimensions of the human respiratory tract at various ages combined with known dosing values from the adult BPT. RESULTS: Consistent and doubling FPDs were successfully generated based on the Taguchi experimental design. The FPD was reliable over a range of 0.8 (±0.09) mg to 14 (±0.94) mg. The calculated PD15 for children aged 1-6 years ranged from 7.1-30 mg. The FPDs generated from the proposed set up are lower than the calculated PD15 and therefore are not expected to cause sudden bronchoconstriction. CONCLUSION: A prototype aerosol delivery system has been developed that is consistently able to deliver doubling doses suitable for bronchial provocation testing in young children.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".