Methacholine Challenge: Comparison of Airway Responsiveness Produced by a Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer Versus a Jet Nebulizer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The latest methacholine challenge testing (MCT) guidelines published by the European Respiratory Society recommend the characterization of nebulizers before their use in clinics and research. Such investigations are necessary for accurately determining the provocative dose of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20) delivered by a given device. The standard English Wright (Wright) jet nebulizer recommended in the 1999 guidelines by the American Thoracic Society has become difficult to obtain and possesses some characteristics that complicate the calculation of dose delivery from this device (e.g. evaporation). Our objective was to determine if the Aerogen® Solo (Solo) vibrating mesh nebulizer provides similar methacholine challenge test results compared to the currently used Wright jet nebulizer. Methods: Sixty mild-to-moderate asthmatics were studied across three research sites in a randomized crossover study. Both methacholine challenges were completed at least 24 hours apart within a 2-week period. Testing with the Wright device was performed as per the 2-minute tidal breathing protocol. The Solo study arm followed the same procedure except for a shorter inhalation time of 1 minute. The provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20) and the methacholine PD20 were calculated following each methacholine challenge. Results: The geometric mean methacholine PC20 values for the Solo and the Wright differed statistically (0.65 mg/mL vs. 2.58 mg/mL, respectively, p < 0.00001) and clinically. Between-nebulizer geometric mean methacholine PD20 results are comparable by clinical standards [81.7 μg (Solo) vs. 64.7 μg (Wright)], although the slight difference in dose was statistically significant (p = 0.018). Conclusions: The comparability of PD20 values between the Solo and the Wright validates the importance of reporting airway responsiveness to methacholine in terms of dose and not concentration, as stressed in the latest testing guidelines. This finding along with several benefits associated with the Solo make it a promising nebulizer for performing MCT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".