Addition of peak flow monitoring to symptom monitoring did not improve healthcare visits, quality of life, or lung function in older adults with moderate-to-severe asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buist AS, Vollmer WM, Wilson SR, et al . A randomized clinical trial of peak flow versus symptom monitoring in older adults with asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006;174:1077–87.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3] Q In older adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, is symptom monitoring plus peak flow monitoring (PFM) (used as part of a comprehensive management plan) better than symptom monitoring alone for healthcare utilisation, quality of life, and lung function? ### ![Graphic][4] Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][5] Allocation: {concealed}.* ### ![Graphic][6] Blinding: blinded (data collectors and {healthcare providers}*). ### ![Graphic][7] Follow up period: up to 2 years. ### ![Graphic][8] Setting: a large managed care organisation in Oregon, USA. ### ![Graphic][9] Patients: 296 adults 50–92 years of age (mean age 66 y, 52% women) who had physician diagnosed asthma, medication use suggestive of moderate-to-severe asthma, bronchodilator reversibility (>8% of baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 sec [FEV1 … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAmerican%2BJournal%2Bof%2BRespiratory%2Band%2BCritical%2BCare%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DAm.%2BJ.%2BRespir.%2BCrit.%2BCare%2BMed.%26rft.volume%253D174%26rft.issue%253D10%26rft.spage%253D1077%26rft.epage%253D1087%26rft.atitle%253DA%2BRandomized%2BClinical%2BTrial%2Bof%2BPeak%2BFlow%2Bversus%2BSymptom%2BMonitoring%2Bin%2BOlder%2BAdults%2Bwith%2BAsthma.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1164%252Frccm.200510-1606OC%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16931634%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1164/rccm.200510-1606OC&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16931634&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F10%2F2%2F52.atom [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".