Effect of inhaled fluticasone propionate on airway responsiveness in treatment-naive individuals--a lesser benefit in females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled parallel group study with inhaled fluticasone propionate over 6 weeks, designed to quantify the beneficial effect on airway responsiveness, and so assess whether short pulses of intermittent prophylactic treatment might serve as an alternative means of managing mild asthma, is reported. The 20-50-yr-old participants, who were recruited from an epidemiological study of the general population, had never knowingly received any regular treatment for asthma. Fluticasone propionate at the maximum recommended dose level (2,000 microg daily) and placebo were administered via metered-dose inhalers, and airway responsiveness was quantified conventionally by the provocative dose of methacholine causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (PD20) at 2-week intervals during the treatment phase and at various intervals subsequently. Compared with placebo fluticasone propionate was associated with a highly significant decrease in airway responsiveness (1.9 doublings of the geometric mean PD20), which was maximal at the end of the 6-week treatment period. No persisting benefit was detectable at the next measurement 2 weeks later, or thereafter. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that the magnitude of the fluticasone propionate effect was significantly greater in males than in females (3.2 versus 1.2 doublings respectively of the geometric mean PD20), but was uninfluenced by current smoking, age or FEV1. In conclusion, in the absence of any possibility of tachyphylaxis, inhaled fluticasone propionate at this dose causes a steadily increasing improvement in airway responsiveness over a 6-week period, which is modified by sex but lost almost immediately on treatment cessation. Short pulses of intermittent prophylactic treatment would not, therefore, be useful as a means of managing mild asthma.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".