MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113023813 · doi:10.4155/tde.13.66

Improved Laboratory Test Methods for Orally Inhaled Products

2013· review· en· W2113023813 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Delivery · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsTrudell Medical International (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)PharmacologyMedicineMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing pharmacopeial methods for the in vitro testing of orally inhaled products (OIPs) are simplified representations of clinical reality, as their objective is to provide metrics that are discriminating of product quality. Attempts to correlate measures such as fine particle fraction <5 µm aerodynamic diameter with in vivo measures of lung deposition have therefore been notoriously difficult to achieve. Although particle imaging-based techniques may be helpful to link in vitro to in vivo data as surrogates for clinical responses, a reappraisal of the purposes for laboratory-based testing of OIPs is required. This article provides guidance on approaches that may be helpful to develop clinically appropriate methods to assess OIP performance in the laboratory, with the ultimate goal of developing robust in vitro-in vivo relationships for the major inhaled drug classes.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.319 · 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