MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056471646 · doi:10.1517/14656566.9.15.2707

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray consistently and significantly improves both the nasal and ocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a review of the clinical data

2008· review· en· W2056471646 on OpenAlexaff
Glenis Scadding, Paul K. Keith

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsMedicineFluticasone propionateNasal sprayDermatologyFluticasoneNasal administrationMometasone furoateAnesthesiaPharmacologyInternal medicineCorticosteroidInhalation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a highly prevalent disorder, which often manifests as both nasal (congestion, sneezing, itching and rhinorrhoea) and ocular (redness, watery eyes, itching and burning) symptoms. Until recently, efficacy against the ocular symptoms of AR has been inconsistent for any single intranasal corticosteroid (INS). Fluticasone furoate is an enhanced-affinity glucocorticoid with potent anti-inflammatory activity. OBJECTIVE: To assess better the efficacy of an INS in the treatment of both the nasal and ocular symptoms of seasonal AR (SAR). METHODS: Data from all four trials of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) in the treatment of SAR are reviewed and critically considered. RESULTS: FFNS consistently and significantly improved the nasal and ocular symptoms of SAR in patients sensitised to several different seasonal allergens (grass, ragweed and mountain cedar pollen) in all trials. An integrated analysis of the results also confirmed improvements in both nasal and ocular symptom scores in previously under-represented adolescent patients treated with FFNS. CONCLUSION: FFNS is the first INS to show consistent nasal and ocular efficacy across all SAR trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on PharmacotherapySame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207