Effect of formoterol with or without budesonide in repeated low-dose allergen challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of combination therapy in mild asthma is debated. The current authors evaluated the effects of formoterol alone and a formoterol/budesonide combination inhaler on asthma deterioration induced by repeated low-dose allergen exposure. In total, 15 subjects with intermittent allergic asthma inhaled low doses of allergen on seven consecutive weekdays in a three-period, crossover, double-blind, double-dummy comparison between formoterol 4.5 microg Turbuhaler, budesonide 160 microg/formoterol 4.5 microg Turbuhaler and placebo, each taken as two puffs 30 min after allergen dosing. The outcome variables were: provocative dose of methacholine causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (PD(20)), exhaled nitric oxide fraction (F(eNO)), sputum eosinophils and prostaglandin D(2), and diary card recordings of symptoms (on a scale of 0-10), short-acting beta(2)-agonist use and evening forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)). With placebo treatment, allergen exposure caused significant increases in airway hyperresponsiveness (geometric mean (coefficient of variation) PD(20): 397 (98) microg before versus 168 (82) microg after), F(eNO) (mean+/-sd 46+/-31 ppb before versus 73+/-46 ppb after) and asthma symptom score (mean+/-sd 0.39+/-0.55 before versus 0.68+/-0.67 after). Budesonide/formoterol abolished these changes and significantly improved baseline FEV(1). Formoterol alone, while providing symptom relief, was no better than placebo in protecting against the allergen-induced increase in airway inflammation. Signs of deteriorating asthma, provoked by low-dose allergen, are prevented by short-term use of budesonide/formoterol but not by temporary use of formoterol alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".