Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Two 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies were performed to compare the efficacy and safety of once- and twice-daily dosing of fluticasone propionate (FP) in the treatment of mild to moderate asthma, considered to require the equivalent of either 200 or 500 µg of FP daily. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In study A, 461 patients with asthma received FP either 200 µg once daily or 100 µg twice daily. In study B, 443 patients with asthma received FP, either 500 µg once daily or 250 µg twice daily. RESULTS: In both studies, regardless of the treatment regimen to which patients were randomly assigned, small improvements over baseline were observed in morning peak expiratory flows (PEF)and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) following 12 weeks of treatment. In study A, the mean morning PEF improved by 2.4% and 4.3% (once daily versus twice daily, P=0.008). In study B, the mean morning PEF improvement was 0.2% and 3.7% (once daily versus twice daily, P<0.001). For both studies, the increases observed in FEV1 were not significant (P = not significant). The incidence of exacerbations of asthma and related events was 13% and 5%, respectively, in the patients with mild asthma for the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group; these exacerbations were 12% and 10%, respectively, in patients with moderate asthma. Otherwise, the incidence and types of adverse events were comparable for the two treatment regimens. Although twice-daily dosing demonstrated small but statistically significant improvements over once-daily dosing, patients of both groups generally maintained a good level of asthma control on both regimens according to current treatment guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily dosing of FP is more effective than once-daily dosing, although the latter can maintain asthma control in most patients.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.120 | 0.025 |
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".