Minimizing Variability of Cascade Impaction Measurements in Inhalers and Nebulizers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to catalogue in a systematic way the available information about factors that may influence the outcome and variability of cascade impactor (CI) measurements of pharmaceutical aerosols for inhalation, such as those obtained from metered dose inhalers (MDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs) or products for nebulization; and to suggest ways to minimize the influence of such factors. To accomplish this task, the authors constructed a cause-and-effect Ishikawa diagram for a CI measurement and considered the influence of each root cause based on industry experience and thorough literature review. The results illustrate the intricate network of underlying causes of CI variability, with the potential for several multi-way statistical interactions. It was also found that significantly more quantitative information exists about impactor-related causes than about operator-derived influences, the contribution of drug assay methodology and product-related causes, suggesting a need for further research in those areas. The understanding and awareness of all these factors should aid in the development of optimized CI methods and appropriate quality control measures for aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) of pharmaceutical aerosols, in line with the current regulatory initiatives involving quality-by-design (QbD).
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".