A Dry Powder Inhaler with Reduced Mouth–Throat Deposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel, compact, and highly efficient dry powder inhaler (DPI) with low mouth-throat deposition is described. The performance of this DPI was evaluated by measuring both (1) the total aerosol deposition in and distal to an idealized mouth-throat cast and (2) the fine particle fraction (FPF) using a standard Mark II Anderson impactor. Ultraviolet (UV) spectroscopy techniques were used in the aerosol deposition measurements. Two inhalation aerosol powders, namely budesonide (extracted from a Pulmicort/Turbuhaler multi-dose device, 200 microg/dose) and ciprofloxacin + lipid + lactose (in-house), were dispersed by the DPI at a steady inhalation flow rate of 60 L/min. The newly developed DPI had a total aerosol delivery distal to the mouth-throat cast of 50.5% +/- 3.04% and 69.7% +/- 1.5% for the budesonide and ciprofloxacin + lipid + lactose aerosols, respectively. This is a significant improvement over the Turbuhaler original device delivery of 34.5% +/- 5.2%, particularly considering that in vitro mouth-throat deposition dropped from 27.5% +/- 5.4% with the budesonide Turbuhaler to 11.0% +/- 3.5% with the present inhaler. The different lung deliveries from the same inhaler for the two formulations above also confirm that the overall performance of an inhaler is optimizable via powder formulations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".