Assessment and evaluation of symptomatic steroid-naive asthmatics without sputum eosinophilia and their response to inhaled corticosteroids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eosinophilic airway inflammation is one of the hallmarks of asthma. Sputum eosinophilia has been suggested as a predictor of the response to inhaled corticosteroids in asthma. This study sought to investigate the proportion of steroid-naive uncontrolled asthmatics without significant sputum eosinophilia (< or = 1%) and to examine whether sputum eosinophilia could predict the response to inhaled corticosteroids. A total of 51 mild uncontrolled steroid-naive asthmatics who had not been treated with oral or inhaled corticosteroids for at least 3 months were investigated. The evaluation included a spirometry, methacholine inhalation challenge and sputum induction on two occasions, one at baseline and the other after 1 month of treatment with 250 microg twice-daily fluticasone propionate. Of the 51 subjects, 15 had an eosinophil count < or = 1%, and 46 completed the two visits. Patients with baseline sputum eosinophils < or = 1% (n=14) were compared with those with sputum eosinophils > 1% (n=32). The baseline characteristics of these two groups were similar. After 1 month of treatment, respiratory symptoms, quality of life, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and provocative concentration causing a 20% fall in FEV1 improved in both groups. The absence of sputum eosinophilia does not seem to be an indicator of poor response to inhaled corticosteroid treatment in steroid-naive asthmatics. However, this finding needs to be investigated further in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, entirely designed to answer this question.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".