MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sputum induction: effect of nebulizer output and inhalation time on cell counts and fluid‐phase measures

2001· article· en· W2070287461 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Belda, P Hussack, Myrna Dolovich, Ann Efthimiadis, F.E. Hargreave

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical & Experimental Allergy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersMerck Canada
KeywordsNebulizerSputumHypertonic salineInhalationEosinophil cationic proteinMedicineSalineChemistryAnesthesiaEosinophilPharmacologyImmunologyChromatographyAsthmaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A knowledge of the factors that can affect induced sputum results is essential in order to standardize the procedure. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the influence of nebulizer output on sputum cell counts and fluid phase measurements at increasing times of sputum induction. METHODS: Eighteen adults with stable asthma inhaled an aerosol of 3% hypertonic saline to induce sputum after 7, 14 and 21 min on 2 days separated by 48 h. On one day, in random order, the ultrasonic nebulizer used had a relatively low output of 0.87 mL/min (particle size 5.58 microm mass median aerodynamic diameter, MMAD) and, on the other, a higher output of 1.90 mL/min (particle size 4.14 microm MMAD). The sputum was selected from each expectorate and examined blind to the induction procedures. RESULTS: With both nebulizers, the 14- and 21-min samples were lower in weight, neutrophils, eosinophils, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) and interleukin (IL)-8 and higher in macrophages. The higher output nebulizer induced sputum with higher cell viability and lower ECP and IL-8. CONCLUSION: The results identify that the volume of hypertonic saline inhaled in sputum induction influences the fluid-phase measurements. The duration of induction does alter the cell counts and suggests that the later expectorated sputum samples originate from more peripheral airways. The results draw attention to the need to standardize the volume and time of nebulization to accurately interpret and compare results.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical & Experimental AllergySame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207