Measurement of peak inspiratory flow with in-check dial device to simulate low-resistance (Diskus) and high-resistance (Turbohaler) dry powder inhalers in children with asthma
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug delivery and lung deposition from a dry powder inhaler (DPI) are dependent on the peak inspiratory flow (PIF) through the DPI. Therefore, when prescribing a DPI, it is important to know whether a child is able to generate sufficient PIF through a particular device. Using a PIF meter (In-Check Dial) that mimics the internal resistance of DPIs, two commonly used devices (high-resistance Turbohaler (TH) and low-resistance Diskus (DK)) determined the PIF generated by asthmatic children through each of them. Two hundred and twenty-three children were studied, of whom 100 (mean age, 9.1 +/- 3.0 years; range, 3-15 years) were experienced with the use of a DPI (>1 month of regular DPI use), and 123 (mean, 5.5 +/- 1.9 years; range, 3-9 years) were inexperienced (no previous DPI use). All of the experienced patients generated more than 30 l/min through both devices, but a PIF of 60 l/min through the TH was obtained by only 68 (68%) of them. The age above which a minimal PIF of 30 l/min (for DK) or 60 l/min (for TH) could be achieved in new DPI users (inexperienced) was 4 years and 9 years, respectively. Even among experienced patients, many young children may not generate optimal PIFs through high-resistance DPIs. When DPI treatment is considered for young children, some devices may be successfully introduced at a younger age. It may thus be important to measure PIF in children who use a DPI or in whom DPI use is contemplated. This evaluation can be easily undertaken in the clinic with the In-Check Dial device.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it