Body Mass Index and Response to Asthma Therapy: Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol versus Montelukast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the relationship between body mass index (BMI) on responses to asthma therapy using a retrospective analysis of four previously reported clinical trials. Fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol via Diskus 100/50 microg twice daily and montelukast (MON) 10 mg daily were compared. BMI was classified as underweight (less than 20 kg/m(2)), normal (20-24.9 kg/m(2)), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m(2)), obese-1 (30-34.9 kg/m(2)), obese-2 (35-39.9 kg/m(2)), or obese-3 (at least 40 kg/m(2)). Outcomes assessed included forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)), asthma symptom score, and albuterol use. FP/salmeterol produced greater improvements compared to MON in each of the asthma outcomes studied over the entire BMI range at the week-12 endpoint, with statistically significant differences noted among normal, overweight, obese-1, and obese-3 subjects. The within-treatment responses to FP/salmeterol across BMI ranges at the week-12 endpoint was statistically significantly greater in normal compared to obese-3 for FEV(1) and albuterol use, and in overweight compared to the obese-3 for each outcome studied. The within-treatment comparisons of MON across BMI ranges were significant for albuterol use in normal and underweight compared to obese-3 at the week-12 endpoint. Compared to subjects with normal BMI, the onset to peak FEV(1) may require longer treatment exposure in the very obese. Treatment responses to FP/salmeterol were consistently greater compared to MON and persisted at higher BMI.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".