The Effect of Biphasic Inhalation Profiles on The Deposition And Clearance of Coarse (6.5 <i>μ</i> m) Bolus Aerosols
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of particle size upon deposition in the human airways is well understood. Pharmaceutical aerosol formulators strive to generate fine aerosols with the potential to penetrate into the deep lung. However, flow rate can also have a major influence on deposition, particularly with coarse aerosols. This study investigated the use of biphasic flow profiles with low flow in the proximal conducting airway as a means of effecting efficient delivery of a coarse aerosol. The study shows that 6.5-microm MMAD aerosol droplets can be deposited in the lung with high efficiency. The delivery technique achieved greater than 70% of the inhaled dose deposited in the whole lung and greater than 50% deposited in the lung periphery. Furthermore, the biphasic flow profiles used, with initial low flow segments of between 300 mL and 900 mL inhaled volume at 8 L/min, are practical flow regimens that should be acceptable to patients and that can be applied to single-breath dry powder inhalers. Twenty-four-hour clearance and Penetration Index measurements were used as a marker for peripheral deposition, and the data show a clear correlation between Penetration Index and 24-h retention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it