MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Placebo Effects in Clinical Trials Evaluating Patients with Uncontrolled Persistent Asthma

2019· article· en· W2944263065 on OpenAlexaff
F. Luc, E. Giroux-Le Prieur, G. À. Whitmore, Peter G. Gibson, Katherine L. Vandemheen, Shawn D. Aaron

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboAsthmaRandomizationClinical trialEmergency departmentRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Patients with uncontrolled, persistent asthma can show substantial health improvements when administered placebo. Objectives We analyzed five randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials that assessed subjects with uncontrolled, persistent asthma to determine the magnitudes of placebo effects across different clinical outcomes. Methods Placebo effects for objective asthma-related outcomes, healthcare utilization outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes were estimated, with adjustments for regression to the mean. Results Statistically significant improvements in all clinical outcomes were seen in patients randomized to placebo across all trials. Placebo effects were largest for healthcare utilization outcomes, including exacerbations (median reduction, 0.44 events/yr; 31% risk reduction; range, 19–56%), emergency department visits (median reduction, 0.19 events/yr; 50% risk reduction; range, 36–82%), and hospitalizations for asthma (median reduction, 0.26 events/yr; 66% risk reduction; range, 61–74%). Patient-reported outcomes exhibited intermediate placebo effects. Median improvements in the Asthma Control Questionnaire and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores in placebo-treated patients were 0.53 units (25% improvement; range, 18–30%) and 8.3 units (19.5% improvement; range 19–20%), respectively. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second exhibited the smallest relative placebo effects (median increase, 77 ml; 4.2% improvement; range, 3.4–4.9%). Subgroup analyses did not reveal patient subgroups that were more susceptible to placebo effects. Pre- and postrandomization counts for asthma exacerbations showed patterns consistent with the expected negative binomial distribution except for significant departures in prerandomization exacerbations for two trials. Conclusions Patients with uncontrolled asthma derived consistent benefit from randomization to placebo. Observed placebo effects may represent beneficial effects of both sham therapy and a structured asthma regimen dictated by the study protocol. In the case of healthcare utilization outcomes, recall errors in self-reported healthcare events may have introduced biases that inflated placebo effect estimates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207