The effects of a multisite aerobic exercise intervention on asthma morbidity in sedentary adults with asthma: the Ex-asthma study randomised controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Aerobic exercise can improve cardiovascular fitness and does not seem to be detrimental to patients with asthma, though its role in changing asthma control and inflammatory profiles is unclear. The main hypothesis of the current randomised controlled trial is that aerobic exercise will be superior to usual care in improving asthma control. Key secondary outcomes are asthma quality of life and inflammatory profiles. DESIGN: A total of 104 sedentary adults with physician-diagnosed asthma will be recruited. Eligible participants will undergo a series of baseline assessments including: the asthma control questionnaire; the asthma quality-of-life questionnaire and the inflammatory profile (assessed from both the blood and sputum samples). On completion of the assessments, participants will be randomised (1:1 allocation) to either 12-weeks of usual care or usual care plus aerobic exercise. Aerobic exercise will consist of three supervised training sessions per week. Each session will consist of taking a short-acting bronchodilator, 10 min of warm-up, 40 min of aerobic exercise (50-75% of heart rate reserve for weeks 1-4, then 70-85% for weeks 5-12) and a 10 min cool-down. Within 1 week of completion, participants will be reassessed (same battery as at baseline). Analyses will assess the difference between the two intervention arms on postintervention levels of asthma control, quality of life and inflammation, adjusting for age, baseline inhaled corticosteroid prescription, body weight change and pretreatment dependent variable level. Missing data will be handled using standard multiple imputation techniques. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by all relevant research ethics boards. Written consent will be obtained from all participants who will be able to withdraw at any time. RESULTS: The result will be disseminated to three groups of stakeholder groups: (1) the scientific and professional community; (2) the research participants and (3) the general public. REGISTRATION DETAILS CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00953342.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.006 |
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".