ScienceGuardians protects the academic community
Secure Environment: Verified contributors only, ensuring meaningful and responsible discussions. Members can stay anonymous while verified, ensuring legitimacy and accountability.
Combatting Misconduct: A fortress against anonymous intimidation and coordinated campaigns, fostering evidence-based dialogue and protecting the academic community.
Resources and Training: Access classified content, participate in enlightening debates, and stay at the forefront of ethical practices.
Hack-Proof Platform: Your privacy is paramount. The identity information of users choosing to remain anonymous is securely stored offline.
Our Commitment:
Integrity and Accountability: Every account verified for credible and responsible engagement.
Inclusivity and Fairness: A platform where all voices in the scientific community are respected.
Support and Collaboration: Helping resolve issues delicately and constructively.
Participant
In Table 5, the relative difference between predicted and in vivo AUC values for the 110 µg dose is reported as 10.4%, yet this deviation appears substantial when considering clinical relevance. Could the authors clarify whether sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how variations in key model parameters (e.g., dissolution rate or mucociliary clearance velocity) influence AUC predictions? 
In Figures 10 and 11, although error bars indicate variability in in vivo data, the CFD model predictions for Cmax appear consistently close to the upper limits of these ranges. Could the authors clarify whether this reflects systematic biases in the model’s assumptions (e.g., nasal geometry or dissolution rates)? Additionally, how was the impact of intersubject variability incorporated into the predictions, especially for drug deposition and dissolution in different nasal regions? Providing more context on these aspects would enhance the interpretation of the model’s performance.