Randomised controlled trial of azithromycin in smokers with asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: Smokers with asthma have poor symptom control, accelerated decline in lung function and an attenuated response to corticosteroids compared to nonsmokers with asthma [1]. There is an unmet need for alternative or additional drugs for smokers with asthma who are unable to stop smoking [2]. Macrolide antibiotics have anti-inflammatory activity [3] and in clinical studies there is good evidence for efficacy in the treatment of diffuse pan-bronchiolitis and cystic fibrosis, as well as in preventing chronic rejection after lung transplantation [4, 5]. In asthma, chronic treatment is associated with a reduction in bronchial hyperreactivity in mild-to-moderate asthma [6] and in exacerbation rates in non-eosinophilic severe asthma [7]. To date, no studies have examined the efficacy of macrolide antibiotics exclusively in current smokers with asthma. A randomised double-blind parallel-group trial compared azithromycin, 250 mg per day, with placebo for 12 weeks. All subjects were aged 18–70 years, were current smokers (≥5 pack-years history) with chronic asthma (>1 year duration; defined by international criteria [8]) and had to be free of exacerbation and respiratory tract infection for a minimum 6-week period prior to randomisation. A baseline visit was performed following a 4-week run-in period on inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy equivalent to 400 μg beclometasone ± a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA). Ethical approval was obtained and all subjects provided written informed consent. Study visits were performed at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Clinic visit peak expiratory flow (PEF) after 12 weeks treatment was the primary outcome measure. A sample size of 68 …
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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".