Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerosol delivery of asthma medications maximizes local effects in the lung and minimizes systemic effects compared with oral therapy. Both corticosteroids and bronchodilators are available in a variety of delivery devices for the treatment of asthma. The 1987 Montreal protocol requiring the phasing out of the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellant in commonly used pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) provided an impetus for the development of new technologies for the delivery of inhaled asthma medications. For pMDIs, CFC has been replaced with hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellant. New types of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and nebulizers, aerosol delivery devices that do not use propellants, also have been introduced. Drug delivery varies based on the device type, the product formulation and patient-related factors. Thus, drug delivery can differ when the same medication is delivered via an HFA pMDI, a CFC pMDI, a DPI or a nebulizer. Even among the same type of device (eg. DPIs, pMDIs), inhaler designs and drug formulations differ. Drug and device selection should be based on consideration of the patient's ability to use the device properly, the availability of a desired drug or drugs (ie. maintenance and rescue) in a particular inhaler device and patient preference. This review describes key characteristics for each device type, explains differences in markers of lung deposition, lists potential advantages and disadvantages of the different devices and discusses how these and other factors need to be considered when selecting an inhaler device that meets the individual needs of a patient.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.010 |
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".