Monitoring asthma therapy using indirect bronchial provocation tests*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Bronchial provocation tests that assess airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) are known to be useful in assisting the diagnosis of asthma and in monitoring inhaled corticosteroid therapy. We reviewed the use of bronchial provocation tests that use stimuli that act indirectly for monitoring the benefits of inhaled corticosteroids. DATA SOURCE: Published clinical trials investigating the effect of inhaled corticosteroids on bronchial hyperresponsiveness in persons with asthma were used for this review. STUDY SELECTION: Studies using indirect stimuli to provoke airway narrowing such as exercise, eucapnic voluntary hyperventilation, cold air hyperventilation, hypertonic saline, mannitol, or adenosine monophosphate (AMP) to assess the effect of inhaled corticosteroids were selected. RESULTS: Stimuli acting indirectly result in the release of a variety of bronchoconstricting mediators such as leukotrienes, prostaglandins, and histamine, from cells such as mast cells and eosinophils. A positive response to indirect stimuli is suggestive of active inflammation and AHR that is consistent with a diagnosis of asthma. Persons with a positive response to indirect stimuli benefit from daily treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. Symptoms and lung function are not useful to predict the long-term success of inhaled corticosteroid dose as they usually resolve rapidly, and well before inflammation and AHR has resolved. Following treatment, AHR to indirect stimuli is attenuated. Further, during long-term treatment, asthmatics can become as non-responsive as non-asthmatic healthy persons, suggesting that asthma is not active. CONCLUSIONS: Non-responsiveness to indirect bronchial provocation tests following inhaled corticosteroids occurs weeks to months following the resolution of symptoms and lung function. Non-responsiveness to indirect stimuli may provide a goal for adequate therapy with inhaled corticosteroids.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".