Sputum induction: effect of nebulizer output and inhalation time on cell counts and fluid‐phase measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".