Comparative performance study of paperboard disposable spacers versus commercial valved holding chambers for aerosol delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the performance, for the administration of fluticasone propionate with a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI), of two low-tech paperboard spacers versus two commercially available valved holding chambers (VHC). METHODS: According to the Canadian standard CAN/CSA-Z264.1-02, total emitted dose (TED) and aerodynamic size distribution were measured for the pMDI in combination with 4 different spacers: a homemade paper cup spacer, the DispozABLE® paperboard spacer, the AeroChamber Plus® plastic VHC, and the Vortex® aluminium VHC. RESULTS: The two disposable paperboard spacers had a lower TED compared to the aluminium VHC, but delivered more than 2.5 times the dose of fluticasone than the commercial plastic VHC. The 3 antistatic devices (i.e. the aluminium VHC, the paperboard DispozABLE® spacer and the paper cup spacer) delivered a significantly higher dose of fine particles than the less antistatic plastic VHC. Their fine particle fraction was statistically similar to that obtained with pMDI without spacer. This respirable fraction ensures an optimal therapeutic effect. All spacers limited the flow of coarse particles, thus avoiding adverse effects on the trachea and oropharynx. CONCLUSION: We have shown that inexpensive and low-tech paperboard spacers are interesting alternatives for the administration of aerosols.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".