Use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer for allergen challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Allergen inhalation tests are a valuable research tool. The allergen dose producing an early asthmatic response (EAR) can be predicted from methacholine responsiveness and allergen skin test endpoint (STE). The Wright ® jet nebulizer, which is both inefficient and increasingly difficult to obtain, has been used historically. We assessed the Solo ® vibrating mesh nebulizer as an alternative for allergen and methacholine challenges. Methods Eighteen mild atopic asthmatics completed the study. Doubling concentration allergen prick skin tests were performed to determine the STE in allergen units/mL. The Wright ® protocol was used to measure the methacholine provocation dose causing a 20% forced expired volume in one second (FEV 1 ) fall (PD 20 ) (μg) and the allergen PD 20 (units). The Solo ® protocol (0.5 mL nebulized to completion, tidal breathing inhalation) was used to determine both methacholine PD 20 and allergen PD 20 . The nebulizer order was randomized and separated by ≥ 2 weeks. Results All data were log transformed. The allergen PD 20 , predicted from the methacholine PD 20 and the STE, was within 2 doubling doses of the PD 20 measured with the Wright ® and 2.64 doubling doses of that measured with Solo ® . The Wright ® allergen PD 20 correlated with the Wright ® methacholine PD 20 (r = 0.74) and the STE (r = 0.78) and more strongly with the product of the two (Wright ® methacholine PD 20 × STE, r = 0.91, p < 0.00001). The Solo ® allergen PD 20 showed similar relationships with the Solo ® methacholine PD 20 (r = 0.61), the STE (r = 0.75) and the product of the two (Solo ® methacholine PD 20 × STE, r = 0.83, p < 0.00002). The Wright ® and the Solo ® methacholine geometric mean PD 20 s were not significantly different (49.3 and 54.5 μg respectively, p = 0.62). The Wright ® allergen PD 20 was slightly but significantly lower than the Solo ® allergen PD 20 (geometric means 6.7 and 10.5 units respectively, p = 0.003). Conclusion The Solo ® allergen PD 20 showed the same relationship with methacholine responsiveness and STE as did the Wright ® . The Solo ® allergen PD 20 was slightly but significantly higher than the Wright ® allergen PD 20 . The Solo ® vibrating mesh nebulizer was well tolerated and is an acceptable alternative for allergen challenge. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03491358
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".