In two parallel pragmatic equivalence trials, leukotriene receptor antagonists as initial therapy for asthma compared with inhaled corticosteroids and as add on therapy to ICS compared with adding long-acting β agonists provided equivalent short-term asthma quality of life but were associated with more medication switches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Price D, Musgrave SD, Shepstone L, et al. Leukotriene antagonists as first-line or add-on asthma-controller therapy. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1695–707.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Asthma is a common condition for which there are robust evidence-based guidelines.1 Such guidelines are by definition based on the gold standard of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which often have restrictive, inclusion and exclusion criteria, such that patients enrolled are not representative of patients seen in real world settings. Pragmatic trial designs have been suggested as a method of overcoming some of these limitations.2 In two parallel, multicentre open-labelled pragmatic trials, Price and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as initial asthma therapy (in trial 1) and the addition of an LTRA or a long-acting β agonist (LABA), by random allocation, for participants who remained uncontrolled after 12 weeks of ICS (in trail 2). Participants with physician-diagnosed asthma were recruited from 53 primary care practices in the UK. The study was not funded by the … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.issn%253D0028-4793%26rft.aulast%253DPrice%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%26rft.volume%253D364%26rft.issue%253D18%26rft.spage%253D1695%26rft.epage%253D1707%26rft.atitle%253DLeukotriene%2Bantagonists%2Bas%2Bfirst-line%2Bor%2Badd-on%2Basthma-controller%2Btherapy.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa1010846%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21542741%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1010846&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=21542741&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F17%2F2%2F44.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000290219800006&link_type=ISI
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.042 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".