MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405499420

[Changes in metered dose inhaler propellants].

2000· article· en· W2405499420 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. Chinet

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInhalerPropellantMetered-dose inhalerChlorofluorocarbonMedicineMontreal ProtocolAsthmaToxicologyPharmacologyOzoneChemistryOzone layerInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The understanding of the damaging effect of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on the stratospheric ozone has led to international agreements calling for the total phase-out of CFC production. The banning of CFCs in pressurized metered dose inhalers used in airways disorders has been postponed on a temporary basis until replacement propellants have been identified. Hydrofluoroalkanes HFA-134a and HFA-227 have been shown to have no ozone damaging potential and to be safe. However, HFAs cannot simply be substituted for CFCs in inhalers of identical design. Their use has required changes in many aspects of the drug formulation, inhaler design and manufacture. This, in turn, has provided at least to some pharmaceutical companies an opportunity to assess and enhance the performances of new inhalers. The new products are neither technically nor pharmacologically identical to their CFC-based counterparts. Some of them have now completed clinical trials and the transition has already started: by the end of 1998, 2 short acting beta-agonist HFA-based inhalers and a corticosteroid HFA-based inhaler have reached the marketplace in France.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.020

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207