Effects of aerobic exercise on asthma control in eosinophilic asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It is now well accepted that asthma is a heterogeneous condition with different phenotypes. Eosinophilic asthma is one of these phenotypes that has a different pathological pathway than other forms of asthma. Aerobic exercise has been shown to be beneficial for asthma control and quality of life, but no study has evaluated its effect on eosinophilic asthmatic patients. Methods: 18 patients with eosinophilic asthma (physician-diagnosed, with sputum eosinophils > 1%) were randomized to 12 weeks of usual care compared (n=8) to usual care plus an aerobic exercise program performed 3 times a week (n=10). Each participant underwent baseline and post intervention assessments including the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). There were no significant differences in age, sex, corticosteroid use, rescue bronchodilator use and AQLQ score at the baseline between the groups. There was a slight difference in ACQ score in favor of the intervention group. Results: In adjusted analyses (age, sex, ICS dose, and baseline level of the measure), eosinophilic patients who exercised compared to non-exercising group had clinically and statistically significant improvements in AQLQ score (Mdiff=1.4, F=5.98, p=.04). Moreover, they had clinically important improvements in ACQ score (Mdiff=−0.61. F=3.99, p=.069) and rescue bronchodilator use (Mdiff=−5.3 puffs/d, F=1.56, p=.247). Conclusion: In conclusion, an aerobic exercise program tends to improve the quality of life and control of asthma in eosinophilic asthma patients. Studies with larger samples will be required to confirm our findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".