The Flutter Device versus the PEP Mask in the Treatment of Adults with Cystic Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the Flutter device (Axcan Scandipharm Inc., Birmingham, AL) with that of the PEP Mask (Astra Tech AB, Molndal, Sweden) in the treatment of adults with cystic fibrosis (CF). Methods: Forty-two adults (mean age 29 F 8.4 years) were recruited from the Adult Cystic Fibrosis Program at St. Michael's Hospital and were randomly assigned to airway clearance treatment with either the Flutter device or the PEP Mask. Pulmonary function tests, the Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB), and the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) were administered 1 month postrecruitment and every 3 months thereafter for 13 months. Results: Using linear regression, the mean slope or annual rate of change of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) percent predicted was 2.0 (F 8.1) for the Flutter group and 4.2 (F 8.0) for the PEP group (p=.4). There were no significant between-group differences in the slopes of the QWB (p=.3) or CRQ (p = 1.0) total scores. The power to detect differences was low (0.137). Conclusions: When comparing the Flutter device and the PEP Mask in the treatment of adults with CF over a 13-month period, there were no significant differences in pulmonary function or health-related quality of life. A much larger sample would be needed to conclude with confidence that there were no between-group differences. Therefore, additional research is needed to further examine the effectiveness of the Flutter device and the PEP Mask.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".