Comparison of the efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler to budesonide Turbuhaler
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mometasone furoate (MF) administered by dry powder inhaler (DPI) was composed with budesonide (BUD) Turbuhaler in the treatment of moderate persistent asthma. The patients were randomized to one of four treatment groups: MF DPI (100, 200, 400 microg b.i.d) or BUD Turbuhaler. 400 microg b.i.d in a 12-week, active-controlled, evaluator-blind, multicentre international trial. The primary efficacy variable was the mean change from baseline to endpoint (last treatment visit) in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). Changes in FEV1 showed a statistically significant superiority (p<0.05) of MF DPI 200 and 400 microg b.i.d compared with the BUD Turbuhaler 400 microg b.i.d treatment. Significant superiority (p<0.05) was also seen in scores for several secondary efficacy variables when MF DPI was compared with BUD Turbuhaler treatment. MF DPI 200 microg b.i.d was comparable to MF DPI 400 microg b.i.d in therapeutic benefit. The incidence of oral candidiasis was no more than 3% in any group. All treatments were well tolerated. A total daily dose of 400 microg of mometasone furoate administered by dry powder inhaler provides a well-tolerated treatment for patients with moderate persistent asthma and results in a significantly greater improvement, when compared to a daily dose of 800 microg BUD Turbuhaler in the parameters measured in this study.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".