MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986938146 · doi:10.1089/jam.2006.19.28

Liquid Atomizing: Nebulizing and Other Methods of Producing Aerosols

2006· review· en· W1986938146 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos F. Lange, Warren H. Finlay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aerosol Medicine · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNebulizerDrug deliveryDelivery systemNanotechnologyBiomedical engineeringMedicineMaterials scienceAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquid atomization (or nebulization) is the most traditional method of drug delivery to the lung. Although other methods seem to often be preferred for the delivery of new drugs, nebulizers are experiencing a revival, with new devices based on different atomization techniques, and the more traditional jet nebulizers evolving to become "smart nebulizers." These smart devices synchronize delivery with the patient's breath, estimate or measure delivered dose, provide feedback and data storage, and in some cases control breathing maneuvers. Besides adding new features, new nebulizers are also addressing traditional shortcomings, namely, reducing size, bulkiness, and power consumption. But in the longer term, nebulizers are expected to offer even more important features. Following the trend toward individually optimized therapy, nebulizers will be able to estimate deposited dosage and concentrations in the lung. In addition, as progress in nanotechnology allows the development of smart drug carrying particles, advanced liquid nebulization is expected to be the delivery mode of choice for these smart particle aerosols.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aerosol MedicineSame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207