MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394810878 · doi:10.1007/s41030-024-00256-0

Interchanging Reusable and Disposable Nebulizers Used with Home-Based Compressors May Result in Inconsistent Dosing: A Laboratory Investigation with Device Combinations Supplied to the US Healthcare Environment

2024· article· en· W4394810878 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePulmonary Therapy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsTrudell Medical International (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNebulizerMouthpieceMedicineAnesthesiaBiomedical engineeringChromatographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reusable nebulizer–compressor combinations deliver inhaled medications for patients with chronic lung diseases. On hospital discharge, the patient may take home the disposable nebulizer that was packaged and combine it with their home compressor. Though this practice may reduce waste, it can increase variability in medication delivery. Our study compared several reusable and disposable nebulizers packaged with compressor kits used in the US. We included a common disposable hospital nebulizer that may not be supplied with popular home kits but may be brought home after a hospitalization or emergency department visit. We focused on fine droplet mass < 4.7 μm aerodynamic diameter (FDM <4.7 μm ), associated with medication delivery to the airways of the lungs. We evaluated the following nebulizer–compressor combinations ( n = 5 replicates): OMBRA® Table Top Compressor with MC 300® reusable and Airlife™ MistyMax™ 10® disposable nebulizer, Sami-the-Seal® compressor with SideStream® reusable and disposable nebulizers and Airlife™ MistyMax 10™ disposable nebulizer, VIOS® compressor with LC Sprint® reusable, and VixOne® and Airlife™ MistyMax™ disposable nebulizers, Innospire® Elegance® compressor with SideStream® reusable and disposable nebulizers and Airlife™ MistyMax 10™ disposable nebulizer, Willis-the-Whale® compressor with SideStream® reusable and disposable nebulizers and Airlife™ MistyMax 10™ disposable nebulizer, Pari PRONEB® Max compressor with LC Sprint® reusable and Airlife™ MistyMax 10™ disposable nebulizer. We placed a 3-ml albuterol solution (0.833 mg/ml) in each nebulizer. A bacterial/viral filter was attached to the nebulizer mouthpiece to capture emitted medication, with the filter exit coupled to a simulator of a tidal breathing adult (rate = 10 cycles/min; V t = 600 ml; I/E ratio = 1:2). The filter was replaced at 1-min intervals until onset of sputter. Droplet size distributions ( n = 5 replicates/system) were determined in parallel by laser diffractometry. Cumulative FDM <4.7 μm varied from 381 ± 33 μg for the best performing combination (Proneb/LC-Sprint) to 150 ± 21 μg for the system with the lowest output (VIOS®/MistyMax 10™). Substituting one nebulizer for another can result in large differences in medication delivery to the lungs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.232 · 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