Two‐minute tidal breathing methacholine bronchial challenge: Comparison of two jet nebulisers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) guideline for methacholine challenge testing (MCT) recommended using the English Wright (EW) nebuliser. However, other brands of nebulisers are also indicated to be acceptable for this technique, but further validation of nebuliser performance is recommended. OBJECTIVE: ) measured by using EW nebuliser and DV 646 nebuliser. METHODS: Subjects were randomly assigned to undergo 2-min tidal breathing methacholine challenge with either EW or DV 646 nebuliser on two separate days, which were at least 24 hours but not more than 7 days apart. The above procedure was repeated for each subject in 1 month, but the nebulisers were selected in a reverse order. RESULTS: measured with using EW and DV 646 nebulisers were 1.82 (6.38) mg/mL versus 0.83 (1.82) mg/mL, respectively in the initial two visits and 2.56 (6.29) mg/mL versus 0.78 (1.40) mg/mL in the following two visits (both P < 0.05). There are well correlations between PC20-EW1 and PC20-EW2 (r = 0.99, P < 0.01), PC20-DV1 and PC20-DV2 (r = 0.88, P < 0.01), and between PC20-EW1 and PC20-DV1 (r = 0.91, P < 0.01), PC20-EW2 and PC20-DV2 (r = 0.78, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: measured by using the two conventional jet nebulisers was both repeatable and the results were highly correlated.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".