Canadian Standards Association Standard CAN/CSA/Z264.1‐02:2002: A New Voluntary Standard for Spacers and Holding Chambers Used with Pressurized Metered‐Dose Inhalers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new Canadian standard (CAN/CSA/Z264.1-02:2002) has been published with the purpose of helping to ensure the safety, efficacy and functionality of spacers and/or holding chambers. They are prescribed for use by spontaneously breathing patients for the treatment of various respiratory diseases where medication is delivered to the lungs using pressurized-metered dose inhalers. This consensus standard was developed with the support of pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers of spacers and holding chambers, and with the help of clinicians, retail pharmacists and representatives of patient advocate bodies associated with respiratory diseases and the dissemination of information related to the treatment and the delivery of inhaled medications. Advice was also sought from expert groups outside of Canada to ensure that the standard would be relevant internationally. Whereas monographs in the pharmaceutical compendia and guidance documents published by regulatory bodies provide information that is largely about the drug product and inhaler, this is the only standard whose focus is primarily on these add-on devices. The purpose of the present review is to highlight the main features of the standard for clinicians by describing its scope, the tests that are intended to assure the robustness of the construction of these devices, the type of testing that is specified to establish in vitro efficacy, and the recommendations for the marking and labelling of the device and its associated packaging. Manufacturers who test their products to this Canadian Standards Association standard will be able to provide performance information about add-on devices to the clinician, facilitating an informed decision when selecting devices for patients.
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 | 0.026 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.016 |
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".