Aerosol Inhalation From Spacers and Valved Holding Chambers Requires Few Tidal Breaths for Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal was to determine the number of breaths required to inhale salbutamol from different spacers/valved holding chambers (VHCs). METHODS: Breathing patterns were recorded for 2- to 7-year-old children inhaling placebo from 4 different spacers/VHCs and were simulated by a flow generator. Drug delivery with different numbers of tidal breaths and with a single maximal breath was compared. RESULTS: With tidal breathing, mean inhalation volumes were large, ranging from 384 mL to 445 mL. Mean values for drug delivery with an Aerochamber Plus (Trudell, London, Canada) were 40% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34%-46%) and 41% (95% CI: 36%-47%) of the total dose with 2 and 9 tidal breaths, respectively. Mean drug delivery values with these breath numbers with a Funhaler (Visiomed, Perth, Australia) were 39% (95% CI: 34%-43%) and 38% (95% CI: 35%-42%), respectively. With a Volumatic (GlaxoSmithKline, Melbourne, Australia), mean drug delivery values with 2 and 9 tidal breaths were 37% (95% CI: 33%-41%) and 43% (95% CI: 40%-46%), respectively (P = .02); there was no significant difference in drug delivery with 3 versus 9 tidal breaths. With the modified soft drink bottle, drug delivery. Drug delivery was not improved with a single maximal breath with any device. CONCLUSION: For young children, tidal breaths through a spacer/VHC were much larger than expected. Two tidal breaths were adequate for small-volume VHCs and a 500-mL modified soft drink bottle, and 3 tidal breaths were adequate for the larger Volumatic VHC.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".