MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414218837 · doi:10.1136/ebm-2025-pod.83

083 The need for inhalers to have dose counters: an observational study in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

2025· article· en· W4414218837 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roni Kraut, Matthew H. G. Katz, Breanna Durant, Rami Attari, Omar Kamal, Оксана Бабенко

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)Wave Control Systems (Canada)Strathcona Community HospitalQueen's UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInhalerAsthmaObservational studyEffective dose (radiation)Metered-dose inhaler

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Inhalers are first-line treatment for many respiratory conditions including asthma and COPD. A crucial feature of inhalers is the dose counter, allowing individuals to track the number of doses of medicine remaining. Yet, while dry powder inhalers (DPIs) typically have dose counters, many commonly used metered dose inhalers (MDIs) do not. Previous studies suggest that the absence of dose counters in MDIs can result in wasted medication or inhalers being used after they have run out of active medication (i.e., only propellant is left). Our objective was to determine if the absence of dose counters in our setting was associated with MDIs being discarded before all doses of active medication were used, or conversely, being used beyond doses of active medication. Method Inhalers were collected from May 2024–February 2025 (3 pharmacies) as part of our pilot inhaler recycling program in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. We recorded the type of inhaler and doses of active medication remaining in each inhaler. For the inhalers with dose counters, doses remaining was taken from the dose counter; for the inhalers without dose counters, where published weight/dose relationships were available, the inhalers were weighed and doses remaining were calculated. Inhalers were excluded if they had 80% or more doses remaining, as these inhalers likely were not intended to be fully used. We also excluded inhalers with the active medication inserted for each use (e.g., HandiHaler), inhalers with unreadable dose counters, and inhalers without cannisters. Chi-squared analysis was performed. Results We collected 460 inhalers (33 different types), 368 met the inclusion criteria. All DPIs (212) had dose counters: 89% had nil doses remaining, 3% had 1–10% of doses remaining, and 8% had 11–80% of doses remaining. Among the MDIs with dose counters (36): 6% had negative doses, 61% had nil doses remaining, 8% had 1–10% of doses remaining, and 25% had 11–80% of doses remaining. Among the MDIs without dose counters and published weight/dose relationships (97): 31% had negative doses remaining, 3% had nil doses remaining, 5% had 1–10% of doses remaining, and 61% had 11–80% doses remaining. The difference in the distributions of doses among these groups of inhalers was statistically significant (P<.01). Additionally, there were 23 MDIs without dose counters and no published weight/dose relationship. Conclusion The significant difference in the distribution of doses remaining in inhalers with and without dose counters is concerning. It reinforces previous literature that has consistently shown that dose counters are critical—without dose counters most individuals are either using their MDIs beyond doses of active medication (i.e., only propellant) or discarding them prematurely. These results reinforce the need for regulations that will require MDIs to have dose counters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery→French-language works237,207→