Not all antistatic valved holding chambers have equivalent performance: An example why each valved holding chamber (VHC)-inhaler combination should be considered unique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Electrostatic charge mitigation by the use of charge dissipative materials with VHCs is common, since initial pre-washing can be avoided. We compared 9antistatic9 VHCs; Optichamber® Diamond® (OD), Phillips Healthcare with AeroChamber Plus® Flow-Vu® (AC Flow-Vu) Trudell Medical International) (n=4 devices/group), to determine suitability for patients delaying inhalation post-actuation. METHODS: An abbreviated Andersen impactor that determined fine particle mass ) was used with an apparatus simulating 2, 5 and 10 s delay intervals following pMDI actuation (Flovent®, GSK plc, 125 µg/actuation fluticasone propionate (FP)). This approach conforms to guidance from European authorities that testing of VHCs should simulate delayed inhalation. Assay for FP was undertaken by HPLC-UV spectrophotometry. Measurements without delay were undertaken to assess mass recovery for FP, validating the procedure. All values are mean±SD. RESULTS: Mass recoveries (131.5±2.9 and 130.7±3.8 µg/actuation for the OD and ACPlus VHCs respectively) were close to label claim, validating system suitability. The variation of FPM with delay interval is shown in the Table. The ratio FPM /FPM ) increased from 1.2 (2-s) to 1.4 (5-s) and to 1.6 (10-s), demonstrating faster depletion of the therapeutically beneficial medication from the OD. CONCLUSION: Not all VHCs manufactured from anti-static materials provide optimum performance for patients who have poor coordination.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".