Modeling Breath-Enhanced Jet Nebulizers to Estimate Pulmonary Drug Deposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Predictable delivery of aerosol medication for a given patient and drug-device combination is crucial, both for therapeutic effect and to avoid toxicity. The gold standard for measuring pulmonary drug deposition (PDD) is gamma scintigraphy. However, these techniques expose patients to radiation, are complicated, and are relevant for only one patient and drug-device combination, making them less available. Alternatively, in vitro experiments have been used as a surrogate to estimate in vivo performance, but this is time-consuming and has few "in vitro to in vivo" correlations for therapeutics delivered by inhalation. An alternative method for determining inhaled mass and PDD is proposed by deriving and validating a mathematical model, for the individual breathing patterns of normal subjects and drug-device operating parameters. This model was evaluated for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). METHODS: This study is comprised of three stages: mathematical model derivation, in vitro testing, and in vivo validation. The model was derived from an idealized patient's respiration cycle and the steady-state operating characteristics of a drug-device combination. The model was tested under in vitro dynamic conditions that varied tidal volume, inspiration-to-expiration time, and breaths per minute. This approach was then extended to incorporate additional physiological parameters (dead space, aerodynamic particle size distribution) and validated against in vivo nuclear medicine data in predicting PDD in both normal subjects and those with CF. RESULTS: The model shows strong agreement with in vitro testing. In vivo testing with normal subjects yielded good agreement, but less agreement for patients with chronic obstructive lung disease and bronchiectasis from CF. CONCLUSIONS: The mathematical model was successful in accommodating a wide range of breathing patterns and drug-device combinations. Furthermore, the model has demonstrated its effectiveness in predicting the amount of aerosol delivered to "normal" subjects. However, challenges remain in predicting deposition in obstructive lung disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".