Rapid pulmonary delivery of inhaled tobramycin for Pseudomonas infection in cystic fibrosis: A pilot project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with cystic fibrosis spend as much 30 min a day inhaling tobramycin. Could a new rapid system deposit the equivalent amount of tobramycin faster? METHODS: Six healthy adult males inhaled 5 ml (300 mg) of tobramycin from a breath enhanced nebulizer and either 125 mg (n = 3) or 150 mg (n = 3) from a vibrating membrane system with a large or small aerosol mixing chamber respectively. A radiolabel was added to the solution and shown to "track" with the tobramycin. Imaging was done with a dual headed gamma camera. Because the radiolabel will be cleared by mucociliary action during administration, algorithms were developed to allow the comparison of a slower system to a faster one. RESULTS: Both formulations were well tolerated. The lung deposition was 16.6 +/- 3.2% (mean +/- SD) of the charge dose delivered in 10.9 +/- 1.0 min for the breath enhanced nebulizer versus 32.0 +/- 5.1% delivered in 2.5 +/- 0.4 min from the vibrating membrane system. The absolute pulmonary delivery of tobramycin was 49.9 +/- 9.6 versus 43.9 +/- 4.8 mg for the two systems respectively, differences that were statistically significant (pair t-test) but unlikely to be clinically significant. There was a similar deposition of tobramycin for the 125 and 150 mg dose. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to deliver an equivalent amount of tobramycin in a shorter period of time with the new vibrating membrane system and a more concentrated formulation. These data will allow the design of a comparison in patients with CF.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".