Comparability of methacholine challenge test results between two jet nebulizers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: To improve standardization of methacholine challenge testing, all nebulizers must be characterized in a manner that allows data comparability between test sites regardless of the protocol or equipment used. In response to issues concerning the highly standardized Wright jet nebulizer, other devices, which may or may not be characterized, have been used for testing. One such device is the Bennett Twin jet nebulizer, which has been assumed to produce equivalent results to the Wright based on a small, unpublished data set.OBJECTIVE: Determine if the Wright and Bennett Twin jet nebulizers produce equivalent methacholine challenge test results.METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS: As an addition to a larger, multi-site study comparing the Wright jet nebulizer and the Aerogen® Solo vibrating mesh nebulizer for standard use in methacholine challenge testing, our test site (n = 20) included a crossover study arm that entailed testing with the Bennett Twin in mild-to-moderate asthmatics. The two jet nebulizer models were calibrated with the same methodology (weight loss of 0.13 g/min) and were operated per the two-minute tidal breathing protocol. Test results in the form of the PC20 (provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second) were compared. MAIN RESULTS: The two jet nebulizer models produced equivalent PC20 results, with geometric mean data of 2.3 mg/mL and 1.8 mg/mL for the Wright and Bennett Twin, respectively.CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that, like the Wright, the Bennett Twin is suitable for standard use in methacholine challenge testing.
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 | 0.041 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".