Preclinical Studies of the Nebulized Delivery of Liposomal Amphotericin B
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Intravenous liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) has accompanying side effects that may be diminished when administering an inhaled form. Delivery systems for inhaled or aerosolized L-AMB vary, and there has not been a recent comparison of available systems to date. Methods: We compared three differently designed nebulizer delivery systems for the inhaled delivery of L-AMB to determine the best combination of efficient lung dosing and treatment time. Aerosol size was measured using a Malvern Mastersizer, and five separate nebulizers were tested. For drug output measurements, a Harvard Lung was used, and aerosol was collected using HEPA filters. Results: Overall aerosol size characteristics were similar for all devices with volume median diameters in the 4–5 μm range. The highest inhaled dose was delivered by the AeroEclipse. The Aerogen and the AeroEclipse had similar predicted pulmonary doses, and the AeroEclipse had the highest pulmonary delivery rates. Conclusion: The AeroEclipse nebulizer may provide more efficient delivery in a shorter amount of time; however, human studies are warranted to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of inhaled delivery of L-AMB from this system.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".