Efficiency of budesonide delivery via a mesh nebulizer in an in‐vitro neonatal ventilator model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the delivery efficiency of budesonide aerosol via a mesh nebulizer in a neonatal ventilator model. DESIGN/METHOD: In an in-vitro ventilated neonatal model, budesonide suspension was administered using a mesh nebulizer. A collection filter was placed distal to the endotracheal tube and budesonide captured by the filter was measured using UV spectroscopy. The ventilator was, in turn, either on high frequency or conventional ventilation mode and the nebulizer was placed either proximal (close to the endotracheal tube) or distal (between the wet side of humidifier and the inspiratory circuit). Each combination (nebulizer position and ventilation mode) to assess budesonide delivery was tested five times. RESULTS: Overall delivery of budesonide to the distal end of the endotracheal tube a small percentage of the total dose administered. The deposition with conventional ventilation was 2.12% (±1.06) and 1.26% (±0.27), with proximal and distal placement of the nebulizer, respectively. With high-frequency ventilation, the deposition percentages were 1.82% (±0.82) and 1.69% (±0.23), with proximal and distal nebulizer placement, respectively. CONCLUSION: Only a small percentage of administered budesonide is delivered to the distal endotracheal tube, irrespective of ventilation mode, and nebulizer placement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".