Emitted doses of salbutamol pressurized metered‐dose inhaler from five different plastic spacer devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent clinical study we have demonstrated that the bronchodilator effect of 200 microg salbutamol (Ventoline) was spacer device-dependent in 100 tested asthmatic children, with the Babyhaler providing greater efficacy for improving peak expiratory flow rate compared to Aeroscopic, Nebuhaler, Aerochamber and Volumatic. The aim of this present study was to correlate our clinical results to in vitro determinations of the emitted dose (ED) of Ventoline administered via these five different plastic spacer devices. ED was determined from the mean of single doses collected in unit dose sampling tubes using a constant suction flow of 28.3 L/min. Three pressurized metered-dose inhalers and three sets of spacer devices were used to obtain a total of 30 measurements per group. Inter-group results were compared by RM-ANOVA or Student-Newman-Keuls method when indicated. Babyhaler delivered significantly (P < 0.05) more salbutamol than Nebuhaler, Aerochamber and Aeroscopic (mean +/- standard deviation: 63.6 +/- 2.9 microg/100 microg actuation for Babyhaler vs. 59.4 +/- 8.6 for Nebuhaler, 50.8 +/- 5.0 for Aerochamber and 47.5 + 2.5 for Aeroscopic). The ED from Volumatic (61.5 +/- 7.9 microg/100 microg actuation) was similar to that from the Babyhaler. The variability in the ED was greatest with the large volume spacers. Despite a greater ED from the Babyhaler, in vitro results do not fully explain the in vivo results. However, the previously described clinical improvement seen with the Babyhaler may be due to the quantitatively different aerosol production in a more 'useful' size range, as well as the different breathing patterns of the children tested. The results of this present study question the relevance of mouthpiece filter collection studies using a constant sampling in predicting clinical or physiological outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".