A mixed-methods pilot study of handheld fan for breathlessness in interstitial lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dyspnoea is a cardinal symptom of fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD), with a lack of proven effective therapies. With emerging evidence of the role of facial and nasal airflow for relieving breathlessness, this pilot study was conducted to examine the feasibility of conducting a clinical trial of a handheld fan (HHF) for dyspnoea management in patients with fibrotic ILD. In this mixed-methods, randomised, assessor-blinded, controlled trial, 30 participants with fibrotic ILD who were dyspnoeic with a modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea grade ≥ 2 were randomised to a HHF for symptom control or no intervention for 2 weeks. Primary outcomes were trial feasibility, change in Dyspnoea-12 scores at Week 2, and participants' perspectives on using a HHF for dyspnoea management. Study recruitment was completed within nine months at a single site. Successful assessor blinding was achieved in the fan group [Bang's Blinding Index - 0.08 (95% CI - 0.45, 0.30)] but not the control group [0.47 (0.12, 0.81)]. There were no significant between-group differences for the change in Dyspnoea-12 or secondary efficacy outcomes. During qualitative interviews, participants reported that using the HHF relieved breathlessness and provided relaxation, despite initial scepticism about its therapeutic benefit. Oxygen-experienced participants described the HHF being easier to use, but not as effective for symptomatic relief, compared to oxygen therapy. Our results confirmed the feasibility of a clinical trial of a HHF in fibrotic ILD. There was a high level of patient acceptance of a HHF for managing dyspnoea, with patients reporting both symptomatic benefits and ease of use.
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 | 0.025 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".