Examining the ability of empirical correlations to predict subject specific <i>in vivo</i> extrathoracic aerosol deposition during tidal breathing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accuracy of five extrathoracic deposition equations was examined by comparing model predictions with in vivo deposition measurements of 99mTc-DTPA radiolabeled 0.9% saline delivered via PARI LC Sprint nebulizers in 19 healthy human subjects. The average extrathoracic deposition fraction measured in vivo was 0.19 ± 0.10 (average ± standard deviation). Comparing to this average value, the extrathoracic deposition fraction predicted by Golshahi et al. equation was the most accurate (0.18 ± 0.08), followed by the model described by the ICRP (0.16 ± 0.03). However, prediction of subject-specific deposition proved more challenging; the Golshahi et al. model performed the best of the examined equations, yet showed only a small positive correlation between measured and predicted deposition in individual subjects with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.34. The difficulties in predicting subject-specific deposition likely result from geometric dissimilarity both within and between subjects, and may require more complicated modeling methods than algebraic equations of the kind examined in this study.Copyright © 2017 American Association for Aerosol Research
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".