The Clinical Efficacy of a Sublingual Monomeric Allergoid at Different Maintenance Doses: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sublingual immunotherapy is widely recognized as a viable treatment for allergic rhinitis and asthma, but the optimal dosage is still under debate, especially with modified allergens. We assessed the clinical effects of a monomeric allergoid across 3 different maintenance doses in mite-monosensitized patients with rhinitis and intermittent asthma. Eighty-nine patients allergic to HDM were randomized to 3 maintenance doses of monomeric allergoid (Lais, Lofarma) or medications only. All the patients recorded their symptoms and rescue drug consumption in a diary card from November to February. Additionally, nasal eosinophil count, spirometry and methacholine bronchial challenge were performed at the beginning of the study and after 3 years. The symptom scores showed a clear improvement in all the three active arms versus baseline and versus the controls, irrespective of the dose. Likewise, a similar improvement versus baseline was seen for nasal inflammation and bronchial hyperreactivity. The SLIT with monomeric allergoids produces clinically significant results across a wide range of doses. The absence of significant side effects, even at high doses, is probably due to their low level of allergeni city.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".