Asthma in the elderly: the effect of choline supplementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma in the elderly is poorly understood as very few studies have included these patients. DNA methylation can affect the expression of asthma susceptibility genes. Methyl groups can be produced through a choline dependent pathway. Asthmatics have decreased serum choline. We studied the effect of choline supplementation in elderly asthmatics and associations between different parameters at baseline. METHODS: This is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. Thirty asthmatics 65 years old and older were evaluated at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks later. They randomly received choline bitartrate 310 mg and placebo capsules twice daily for 6 weeks. RESULTS: Ninety percent of the study subjects were atopic and 97 % of them were using inhaled corticosteroids. Choline supplementation did not affect ACT (asthma control test), spirometric values, eosinophil counts or total serum IgE vs. placebo (p > 0.86 for all comparisons). In subjects with lower ACT (≤20), lower FEV1 % (<60 %), or higher eosinophil counts (≥0.6), there was similarly no difference between choline and placebo (p > 0.63). We found no significant association between eosinophil counts and IgE and the other parameters at baseline including in subjects with lower ACT or on higher inhaled steroid doses (p > 0.09). Asthmatic women had lower baseline ACT scores compared to men (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of elderly asthmatics, choline supplementation for 6 weeks did not affect ACT scores, spirometric values, peripheral blood eosinophils, or total serum IgE. These results will require confirmation in larger and longer studies. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02371993.
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) | 0.001 | 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".