MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000312566 · doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2019.12.035

Spacers and Valved Holding Chambers—The Risk of Switching to Different Chambers

2020· article· en· W3000312566 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Federico Lavorini, Celeste Barreto, Job F. M. van Boven, Will Carroll, Joy Conway, Richard W. Costello, Birthe Hellqvist Dahl, Richard Dekhuijzen, S. J. Holmes, Mark L Levy, Mathiéu Molimard, Nicolás Roche, Miguel Román-Rodríguez, Nicola Scichilone, Jane Scullion, Omar S. Usmani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMundipharmaAerogenCiplaSandozGlaxoSmithKlineChiesi EspañaAstraZenecaChiesi FarmaceuticiSanofiTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesNovartisPfizerTrudell Medical InternationalBoehringer Ingelheim
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spacers are pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) accessory devices developed to reduce problems of poor inhaler technique with pMDIs. Spacers that feature a 1-way inspiratory valve are termed valved holding chambers (VHCs); they act as aerosol reservoirs, allowing the user to actuate the pMDI device and then inhale the medication in a 2-step process that helps users overcome challenges in coordinating pMDI actuation with inhalation. Both spacers and VHCs have been shown to increase fine particle delivery to the lungs, decrease oropharyngeal deposition, and reduce corticosteroid-related side effects such as throat irritation, dysphonia, and oral candidiasis commonly seen with the use of pMDIs alone. Spacers and VHCs are not all the same, and also are not interchangeable: the performance may vary according to their size, shape, material of manufacture and propensity to become electrostatically charged, their mode of interface with the patient, and the presence or otherwise of valves and feedback devices. Thus, pairing of a pMDI plus a spacer or a VHC should be considered as a unique delivery system. In this Rostrum we discuss the risk potential for a patient getting switched to a spacer or VHC that delivers a reduced dose medication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In PracticeSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207