Bronchodilator response to albuterol nebulized with hypertonic saline in asthmatic children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Asthma is distinguished by bronchial obstruction reversible by bronchodilators. The first‐line treatment for asthmatic exacerbations is the use of inhaled beta‐agonists, by pressurized metered‐dose inhalers or nebulized with normal saline solution (NSS). There are no reports of nebulized beta agonists' efficacy in asthmatic children when administered with hypertonic saline solution (HSS). Objective To evaluate bronchodilator responses (BDR) to albuterol nebulized with 3%‐HSS in asthmatic children, compared to albuterol nebulized with NSS. Population and Methods In a prospective, experimental, double‐blind, randomized clinical study, children with a confirmed diagnosis of asthma with mild or moderate bronchial obstruction (FEV1 40%–79% of predicted) were randomized to receive a nebulization with 2.5 mg of albuterol diluted in 3 cc of 3%‐HSS or NSS (0.9%), by means of a jet nebulizer. After 30 min, the BDR was assessed. Results Fifty patients (mean age 12.0 ± 3 years, 29 males) were enrolled; 25 were randomized to the 3%‐HSS group (FEV1 65.2% ± 10) and 25 to the NSS group (FEV1 69.1% ± 7.1). The BDR of FEV1 was 41.2% (SD: ±20.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 35.1–50.4) and 17.3% (SD: ±19.4; 95% CI: 9.7–24.9) (p < .0001) and of maximum mid‐expiratory flow was 130% (SD: ±90.8; 95% CI: 94.6–166) and 69.8% (SD: ±72.5; 95% CI: 41.4–98.2) (p < .01), for the 3%‐HSS and NSS groups, respectively. Conclusion Albuterol produces a greater BDR when nebulized with 3%‐HSS compared to NSS in asthmatic children with mild or moderate bronchial obstruction.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".