Multivariate Analysis of Effects of Asthmatic Patient Respiratory Profiles on the In Vitro Performance of a Reservoir Multidose and a Capsule-Based Dry Powder Inhaler
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of two different dry powder inhalers, of the NGI induction port and Alberta throat and of the actual inspiratory profiles of asthmatic patients on in-vitro drug inhalation performances. METHODS: The two devices considered were a reservoir multidose and a capsule-based inhaler. The formulation used to test the inhalers was a combination of formoterol fumarate and beclomethasone dipropionate. A breath simulator was used to mimic inhalatory patterns previously determined in vivo. A multivariate approach was adopted to estimate the significance of the effect of the investigated variables in the explored domain. RESULTS: Breath simulator was a useful tool to mimic in vitro the in vivo inspiratory profiles of asthmatic patients. The type of throat coupled with the impactor did not affect the aerodynamic distribution of the investigated formulation. However, the type of inhaler and inspiratory profiles affected the respirable dose of drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The multivariate statistical approach demonstrated that the multidose inhaler, released efficiently a high fine particle mass independently from the inspiratory profiles adopted. Differently, the single dose capsule inhaler, showed a significant decrease of fine particle mass of both drugs when the device was activated using the minimum inspiratory volume (592 mL).
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".