Clinical Models to Compare the Safety and Efficacy of Inhaled Corticosteroids in Patients with Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no consensus on the methods to compare the clinical efficacy of different inhaled corticosteroids. A comparison needs to be made in terms of relative potency, and studies should include two-, or preferably, three-dose comparisons. A number of clinical models and outcomes are available; they have their relative advantages and disadvantages. While measurements of symptoms and spirometry are easy and readily available, they show a flat dose-response relationship. Measurements of bronchial hyper-responsiveness to exercise and adenosine monophosphate, allergen-induced airway responses, and measurements of inflammation in sputum and exhaled air show steep dose-response relationships, particularly to low doses of inhaled steroids. An uncontrolled asthma model followed by stabilization with a short course of additional steroid, with measurements of airway responsiveness and airway inflammation, in a crossover study seems more promising than the other models. Drug deposition studies and mathematical modelling of drug pharmacokinetics in the airway may provide complementary information to clinical drug relative potency studies. Fine particle dose and emitted doses, rather than the nominal dose, should be considered in the estimation of clinical and systemic effects, respectively. When a second entry (generic) drug is being evaluated in comparison with the innovator drug (same compound and same device), it may be appropriate to consider accepting a generic as bioequivalent if it satisfies pharmaceutical equivalence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".