Safety and efficiency of metered dose inhaler delivery of salbutamol in the intubated rabbit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficiency of metered dose inhaler salbutamol delivered to the intubated rabbit. DESIGN: Prospective, comparative, five-group laboratory investigation. SETTING: Animal laboratory, Department of Nuclear Medicine. SUBJECTS: A total of 30 adult, anesthetized New Zealand White rabbits. INTERVENTIONS: Three groups of rabbits underwent tracheal intubation through a tracheostomy and received 5 puffs of 99mTcO4 salbutamol delivered at the elbow connector (group 1) or via a catheter with its distal tip positioned at the midpoint (group 2) or bevel of the endotracheal tube (group 3). No intervention was provided for the rabbits in the fourth group. A fifth group underwent tracheal intubation through the mouth and received salbutamol (5 puffs) delivered at the bevel of the endotracheal tube. MEASUREMENTS: Delivery efficiency was expressed as the ratio of radioactivity emitted from lungs and trachea to the total radioactivity of the administered dose. Histopathologic injury scores were assigned to each trachea or lung specimen. MAIN RESULTS: Delivery efficiency was 30 times greater in groups 3 and 5 (full catheter) than in group 1 (elbow). The injury scores were similar in all groups. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the increased efficiency obtained by administration of metered dose inhaler salbutamol at the distal tip of endotracheal tube is not necessarily associated with increased epithelial injury.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".