Exploring the impact of sample flowrate on in vitro measurements of metered dose inhaler performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacopoeial methods for measurement of the aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) of metered dose inhalers (MDIs) by cascade impaction specify a sampling flow rate of 28.3L/min. However, there is little data within the literature to rationalize this figure, or to support its clinical relevance. In addition, the standard United States Pharmacopoeia Induction Port (USP IP) used for testing is known to inaccurately reflect deposition behavior in the upper airway, further compromising the relevance of testing, for product development. This article describes experimental studies of the effect of sampling flow rate on APSD data gathered using an Andersen Cascade Impactor (ACI). Tests were carried out using two different formulations to assess the influence of formulation composition. In addition, comparative testing with an Alberta Idealised Throat, in place of the USP IP, to ensure more realistic representation of the upper airway. The results show how measured APSD and fine particle dose, the dose than on the basis of size would be expected to deposit in the lung, vary as a function of test methodology, providing insight as to how the testing can be modified towards greater clinical relevance.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".