Comparative in vitro performance of a new re-usable breath-actuated nebulizer (BAN) with other high performance systems intended for domiciliary use - 2: Portable battery-compressor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Treatments with home based compressor/nebulizer systems can offer very different delivery characteristics. We evaluated a new, reusable BAN (AeroEclipse-XL®, Trudell Medical International) in breath-actuated mode with its portable (Ombra®) battery-compressor. METHODS: The nebulizer-on-test (n=5/group) was filled with 2.5-mL, 1.0 mg/mL albuterol (Ventolin®, GSK Canada Inc.), and connected to a breathing simulator (ASL5000, IngMar Medical, Pittsburgh, PA) mimicking adult tidal breathing (V t = 600-mL; duty cycle = 33%; rate = 10 cycles/min). Emitted aerosol was captured on a filter at the mouthpiece, replaced at minute intervals until onset of sputtering, defining run time. Recovery/assay of salbutamol was undertaken by HPLC-UV spectrophotometry. Fine droplet fraction (FDF ) was the product of total mass and FDF . Comparative measurements were made with the Sprint® (PARI, Germany) and MicroPlus® (Philips-Respironics, Germany) nebulizers using PARI BOY® Mobile S® and Inspiration Micro Elite® portable compressors respectively. RESULTS: See Table CONCLUSIONS: The BAN/Ombra® system provided highly respirable aerosol with FDM substantially greater than the benchmark systems. Its run time reflects the fact that aerosol is only delivered during inhalation and not wasted to the environment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".