MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008088907 · doi:10.1517/17425247.2015.995087

Nebulizers for drug delivery to the lungs

2014· review· en· W2008088907 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew R. Martin, Warren H. Finlay

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Drug Delivery · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNebulizerDrug deliveryMedicineNanotechnologyIntensive care medicineBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Nebulizers are the oldest modern method of delivering aerosols to the lungs for the purpose of respiratory drug delivery. While use of nebulizers remains widespread in the hospital and home setting, certain newer nebulization technologies have enabled more portable use. Varied fundamental processes of droplet formation and breakup are used in modern nebulizers, and these processes impact device performance and suitability for nebulization of various formulations. AREAS COVERED: This review first describes basic aspects of nebulization technologies, including jet nebulizers, various high-frequency vibration techniques, and the use of colliding liquid jets. Nebulizer use in hospital and home settings is discussed next. Complications in aerosol droplet size measurement owing to the changes in nebulized droplet diameters due to evaporation or condensation are discussed, as is nebulization during mechanical ventilation. EXPERT OPINION: While the limelight may often appear to be focused on other delivery devices, such as pressurized metered dose and dry powder inhalers, the ease of formulating many drugs in water and delivering them as aqueous aerosols ensures that nebulizers will remain as a viable and relevant method of respiratory drug delivery. This is particularly true given recent improvements in nebulizer droplet production technology.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations199
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Drug DeliverySame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207