Effects of Divided Doses of a Bronchodilator Aerosol and the Intervening Time Interval on the Forced Expiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twelve patients with bronchial asthma participated in a blind, randomized, crossover study comparing the effects of 500 micrograms terbutaline in one inhalation, 125 micrograms in four inhalations taken in rapid succession, and 125 micrograms in four inhalations taken with an intervening time interval of 30 min. There were no significant differences between the three modes of inhalation of 500 micrograms terbutaline in any of the spirometric variables, i.e., 1-second forced expiratory volume, forced vital capacity, and maximal airflows when 50 and 75% of the forced vital capacity was exhaled from the total lung capacity. However, there were neither any significant differences between the levels of bronchodilation reached after administration of 500 micrograms and 2 or 3 X 125 micrograms terbutaline with an intervening time interval of 30 min. The time interval between the divided doses was possibly too long to achieve maximum accumulated effect of the four divided doses.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".