Asthma exacerbations and worsenings in patients aged 1–75 years with add-on tiotropium treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review explores the effect of tiotropium Respimat® add-on therapy on asthma exacerbations and worsenings, adverse events (AEs) related to exacerbations and symptoms and any effects on seasonality across the 10 UniTinA-asthma® clinical trials comprising over 6000 patients. When added on to inhaled corticosteroids ± additional therapies, tiotropium significantly reduced the risk of exacerbations and worsenings in adults with symptomatic severe asthma and provided a non-significant improvement in worsenings in adults with symptomatic moderate and mild asthma, which was significant for patients with moderate asthma receiving tiotropium 2.5 µg once daily vs. placebo. Trials in paediatric patients were not powered to assess exacerbations or worsenings, but when AEs related to asthma exacerbations and symptoms were grouped into a composite endpoint and pooled, tiotropium improved outcomes vs. placebo (rate ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.63, 0.93). The reduction in exacerbations with tiotropium is apparent across all patients during the observed seasonal peaks of these events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".