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
The ability of nebulizers to deliver dextran (nominal molecular mass, 4,000 g/mol) to the lung as an inhaled aerosol is evaluated by in vitro experimental methods and mathematical models. Dextran in isotonic saline was aerosolized by four nebulizer types (Pari LC STAR, Hudson T-Updraft II, Acorn II, and Sonix 2000) at dextran concentrations </= 400 mg/ml and with 2.5- and 4-ml volume fills. Aerosols inhaled during breath simulation were characterized by in-line phase Doppler anemometry, filter collection, osmometry, and gravimetry. Mathematical models were used to estimate amounts of the characterized aerosols depositing in the different regions of lung models, and mathematical models of mucous thickness were then developed to estimate initial concentrations of the depositing dextran in the mucus of each conducting airway generation. Models of three subjects (4 yr old, 8 yr old, and adult) were used. The high viscosity of the dextran solutions tested (up to seven times that of water) negatively impacts nebulization, and results in poor performance with most delivery systems tested. Our results suggest that airway mucosal dextran concentrations associated with efficacy in previous animal and in vitro models are achievable with reasonable delivery times (</= 12 min) with only one of the delivery systems/formulations tested: the Pari LC STAR nebulizer, using a 2. 5-ml volume fill and a dextran concentration of 200 mg/ml.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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