MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025018153 · doi:10.1089/jamp.2010.0846

<i>In Vivo–In Vitro</i> Correlations: Predicting Pulmonary Drug Deposition from Pharmaceutical Aerosols

2010· review· en· W2025018153 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeposition (geology)In silicoAerosolComputational modelComputational fluid dynamicsIn vivoPharmaceutical sciencesRespiratory tractComputer scienceBiological systemChemistrySimulationRespiratory systemMedicinePathologyBiologyMeteorologyAerospace engineeringEngineeringInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to answer the question "what research remains to be done?" we review the current state of the art in pharmaceutical aerosol deposition modeling and explore possible in vivo- in vitro correlations (IVIVC) linking drug deposition in the human lung to predictions made using in vitro physical airway models and in silico computer models. The use of physical replicas of portions of the respiratory tract is considered, alongside the advantages and disadvantages of the different imaging methods used to obtain their dimensions. The use of airway replicas to determine drug deposition in vitro is discussed and compared with the predictions from different empirical curve fits to long-standing in vivo deposition data for monodisperse aerosols. The use of improved computational models and three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to predict aerosol deposition within the respiratory tract is examined. CFD's ability to predict both drug deposition from pharmaceutical aerosol sprays and powder behavior in dry powder inhalers is examined; both were highlighted as important areas for future research. Although the authors note the abilities of current in vitro and in silico methods to predict in vivo data, a number of limitations remain. These include our present inability to either image or replicate all but the most proximal airways in sufficient spatial and temporal detail to allow full capture of the fluid and aerosol mechanics in these regions. In addition, the highly complex microscale behavior of aerosols within inhalers and the respiratory tract places extreme computational demands on in silico methods. When the complexity of variations in respiratory tract geometry is associated with additional factors such as breathing pattern, age, disease state, postural position, and patient-device interaction are all considered, it is clear that further research is required before the prediction of all aspects of inhaled pharmaceutical aerosol deposition is possible.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.288 · 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