Understanding the role of swirling flow in dry powder inhalers: Implications for design considerations and pulmonary delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are widely employed to treat respiratory diseases, offering numerous advantages such as high dose capacity and stable formulations. However, they usually face challenges in achieving sufficient pulmonary drug delivery and minimizing excessive oropharyngeal deposition. This review provides a new viewpoint to address these challenges by focusing on the role of swirling flow, a crucial yet under-researched aspect that induces strong turbulence. In the review, we comprehensively discuss both key classic designs (tangential inlet, swirling chamber, grid mesh, and mouthpiece) and innovative designs in inhalers, exploring how the induced swirling flow initiates powder dispersion and promotes delivery efficiency. Valuable design considerations to effectively coordinate inhalers with formulations and patients are also provided. It is highlighted that the delicate manipulation of swirling flow is essential to maximize benefits. By emphasizing the role of swirling flow and its potential application, this review offers promising insights for advancing DPI technology and optimizing therapeutic outcomes in inhaled therapy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".