ArticlePharmaceutics2023
In Silico Quantification of Intersubject Variability on Aerosol Deposition in the Oral Airway.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- CFD study on deposition pattern of adult oropharyngeal drug particles with inhalation devices using realistic anatomical models under steady-state flow.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Article
- Modeling aerosol bolus inhalations in the human lung with the Multiple Path Particle Deposition model: Comparison with experimental data.Journal of aerosol science · 2025Article
- Subject-Specific Multi-Scale Modeling of the Fate of Inhaled Aerosols.Journal of aerosol science · 2025Article
- A Critical Analysis of the CFD-DEM Simulation of Pharmaceutical Aerosols Deposition in Upper Intra-Thoracic Airways: Considerations on Aerosol Transport and Deposition.Pharmaceutics · 2024Article
- The effects of airway disease on the deposition of inhaled drugs.Expert opinion on drug delivery · 2024Review
- Recent Developments in Aerosol Pulmonary Drug Delivery: New Technologies, New Cargos, and New Targets.Annual review of biomedical engineering · 2024Review
- Sensitivity Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Nanoparticle Deposition from Tongue Morphological Variations.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Automated bidirectional coupling of multiscale models of aerosol dosimetry: validation with subject-specific deposition data.Journal of aerosol science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The extrathoracic oral airway is not only a major mechanical barrier for pharmaceutical aerosols to reach the lung but also a major source of variability in lung deposition. Using computational fluid dynamics, deposition of 1−30 µm particles was predicted in 11 CT-based models of the oral airways of adults. Simulations were performed for mouth breathing during both inspiration and expiration at two steady-state flow rates representative of resting/nebulizer use (18 L/min) and of dry powder inhaler (DPI) use (45 L/min). Consistent with previous in vitro studies, there was a large intersubject variability in oral deposition. For an optimal size distribution of 1−5 µm for pharmaceutical aerosols, our data suggest that >75% of the inhaled aerosol is delivered to the intrathoracic lungs in most subjects when using a nebulizer but only in about half the subjects when using a DPI. There was no significant difference in oral deposition efficiency between inspiration and expiration, unlike subregional deposition, which shows significantly different patterns between the two breathing phases. These results highlight the need for incorporating a morphological variation of the upper airway in predictive models of aerosol deposition for accurate predictions of particle dosimetry in the intrathoracic region of the lung.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.