Montelukast as Add‐On Therapy to Inhaled Corticosteroids in the Management of Asthma (The SAS Trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of montelukast as add-on therapy for asthmatic patients who remain uncontrolled with low, moderate or high doses of inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy. DESIGN: An eight-week, multicentre, open-label, observational study. RESULTS: Of 320 patients enrolled, 288 (90.0%) completed the study. Of patients who had uncontrolled asthma symptoms (Canadian Asthma Consensus Guidelines Update, 2003) but were controlled according to the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ score of less than 1.5), 93.9% maintained asthma control at week 8. Of patients with uncontrolled asthma at baseline for both definitions, 63.5% achieved asthma control by week 8. The mean +/- SD ACQ score decreased from 1.13+/-0.28 to 0.57+/-0.50 (P<0.001) for controlled patients at baseline and from 2.38+/-0.73 to 1.03+/-0.80 (P<0.001) for patients who were uncontrolled at baseline, each representing a clinically significant improvement. CONCLUSION: Montelukast add-on therapy is an effective alternative to inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".