Nasal Delivery Devices: A Comparative Study on Cadaver Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nasal nebulization is a more effective method of delivering topical medication than nasal spray. The purpose of this study was to assess the deposition patterns of nebulization in delivering topical agents to the nasal cavities in the human cadaveric model using a color-based method. We have compared these following nasal devices: single-dose vial irrigation, syringe-irrigation, common nasal spray, Spray-sol, MAD nasal, and Rinowash nasal douche. Endoscopic images were recorded at six anatomical regions prior to and following each nasal device application and four reviewers evaluated the amount of surface area staining. At the nasal vestibule, the blue dye distribution achieved with Spray-sol was more extensive than nasal sprays. At inferior turbinate and nasal cavity floor, single dose vial, syringe, MAD nasal, Spray-sol, and Rinowash demonstrated a greater extent of dye distribution than nasal spray. At the middle turbinate, the average score of both Spray-sol and MAD nasal was significantly higher than other nasal investigated devices. At the nasopharynx, Spray-sol nebulization covers a surface significantly greater than other devices. Compared to traditional sprays, Spray-sol and MAD nasal provided a more effective method of delivering topical agents to the deeper and higher portions of the nasal cavities.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".