Formulation and In Vivo Evaluation of Effervescent Inhalable Carrier Particles for Pulmonary Delivery of Nanoparticles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of a new inhalable effervescent carrier preparation containing model nanoparticles. Spray-freeze drying was used to prepare inhalable powders containing butylcyanoacrylate nanoparticles. The particle size of the nanoparticles before incorporation into the effervescent carrier and after dissolving the carrier powder was measured using laser light scattering. The particle size distribution of the effervescent carrier aerosol particles was measured using a cascade impactor. The prepared powder was tested in vivo using five Balb/c nude mice. The animals were treated with 1 mg of inhalable powder every week for 4 weeks. The body weight and morbidity score of the mice were observed over an 8-week period. The effervescent activity of the inhalable nanoparticle powder was observed when the powder was exposed to humidity. The particle size of the nanoparticles did not change significantly after spray-freeze drying. The mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) of the prepared powder was 4.80 +/- 2.12 microm, which is suitable for lung delivery. The animals that were treated with effervescent powder tolerated the administration without any changes in their morbidity scores. Our pilot study demonstrates that pulmonary nanoparticle delivery via effervescent carrier particles appears safe in the present animal model.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".