Adapting the Abbreviated Impactor Measurement (AIM) Concept to Make Appropriate Inhaler Aerosol Measurements to Compare with Clinical Data: A Scoping Study with the “Alberta” Idealized Throat (AIT) Inlet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Abbreviated Impactor Measurement (AIM) concept simplifies determination of aerodynamic size metrics for inhaler quality control testing. A similar approach is needed to compare in vitro particle size distribution metrics with human respiratory tract (HRT) deposition. METHODS: An abbreviated impactor based on the Andersen eight-stage cascade impactor (ACI) was developed having two size-fractionating stages with cut-points at 4.7 and 1.1 μm aerodynamic diameter at 28.3 L/min, to distinguish between coarse (CPM), fine (FPM), and extra-fine (EPM) mass fractions likely to deposit in the oropharynx, airways of the lungs, or be exhaled, respectively. In vitro data were determined for pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI)-delivered salbutamol (100 μg/actuation ex valve) with an "Alberta" idealized adult upper airway (throat) inlet (AIM-pHRT). Corresponding benchmark data for a full resolution Andersen eight-stage cascade impactor with "Alberta" idealized throat (ACI-AIT) and ACI-Ph.Eur./USP inlet were obtained with the same product. RESULTS: Mass recoveries (μg/actuation; mean ± SD) were equivalent at 100.5 ± 0.7; 97.2 ± 4.9 and 101.5 ± 9.5 for the AIM-pHRT, ACI-AIT, and ACI-Ph.Eur./USP induction port, respectively [one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), p=0.64]. Corresponding values of CPM were 59.2 ± 4.2; 58.4 ± 2.4, and 65.6 ± 5.8; the AIT captured larger particles more efficiently than the Ph.Eur./USP induction port, so that less large particle mass was apparent in the upper stages of the ACI-AIT (p ≤ 0.037). Equivalent values of FPM were similar regardless of inlet/abbreviation at 41.3 ± 4.2; 38.7 ± 3.0, and 35.9 ± 3.8 (p=0.054), and EPM measures (1.7 ± 0.3; 2.0 ± 0.5; 2.1 ± 0.3) were also comparable (p=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: The AIT inlet significantly increased the capture of the coarse fraction compared with that collected by the Ph.Eur./USP induction port. Measures obtained using the AIM-pHRT apparatus were comparable with those obtained with the ACI-AIT.
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 | 0.056 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".