Ten-year follow-up of subjects who received bronchial thermoplasty (BT) in 3 randomized controlled studies (BT10+)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: BT is an endoscopic treatment for uncontrolled asthma. The long-term efficacy and safety of BT beyond 5 years is not known. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of BT at 10+ years follow-up. Methods: BT10+ is an international, multi-center, ≥10yrs follow-up study on subjects who were previously enrolled in the AIR, RISA and AIR2 trials. Demographics, quality of life, lung function, severe exacerbations (SE, defined as exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids) and healthcare utilisation for the previous year were collected. Results: Of the 429 subjects enrolled in the previous studies, 192 subjects had a follow-up at 10.6-15.8 years (12.1 median) post-treatment at 16 centers: 137 treated with BT during a previous study, 18 control/sham treated with BT post-study, and 37 control/sham only. Rates for hospitalisations, emergency visits and SE for BT subjects from the year prior to BT to the year prior to the BT 10+ visit are shown in Figure 1. No increases in hospitalisations or ER visits were observed compared to baseline and SE were stable compared to Year 1. No deterioration in rates were shown for control/sham only and post-study BT patients. Quality of life and spirometry results were comparable between Years 1, 5, and 10+ for all groups. Conclusion: The BT10+ study suggests that efficacy of bronchial thermoplasty is sustained over 10 years. Funding: Boston Scientific
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 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".