MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183974278 · doi:10.2196/28624

The Efficacy of the Dyson Air Purifier in Improving Asthma Control: Protocol for a Single-Center, Investigator-Led, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

2021· article· en· W3183974278 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wei Chern Gavin Fong, Susan Grevatt, Stephen Potter, Tracey Tidbury, Latha Kadalayil, Kaisha Bennett, Maria Larsson, Frédéric Nicolas, Ramesh Kurukulaaratchy, Syed Hasan Arshad

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIndoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir purifierIndoor air qualityAsthmaRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)MedicineHEPAAir quality indexAir filtrationPlaceboEnvironmental healthEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringTelecommunicationsSurgeryAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Indoor air quality has been shown to influence asthma control and outcomes. Air purifiers and high-efficiency particulate air filtration devices can improve indoor air quality by reducing the indoor levels of air pollution and allergens. However, the influence of this improved indoor air quality on asthma control remains unclear; hence, randomized controlled trials are needed to further elucidate this phenomenon. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the effect of reducing the levels of allergens and pollutants in the bedroom and living room through the use of Dyson air purifiers (Dyson Pure Cool) on asthma control. METHODS: This is an 18-month long, investigator-led, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, single-center trial. Subjects will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to active or placebo Dyson filters. The primary outcome is the change in the scores of Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 and Asthma-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire from baseline. Secondary outcomes include changes in lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second, forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity ratio, and midexpiratory flows), peak expiratory flow measurements, airway hyperresponsiveness (assessed by methacholine bronchial challenge), fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and indoor air pollutant levels. The sample size will be 50 subjects, and all subjects will have a confirmed diagnosis of mild persistent to moderate persistent asthma along with an Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 score of >1.5. RESULTS: This study was approved by the West Midlands Research Ethics Committee (18/WM/0277). The study results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals; presented at relevant scientific conferences; and shared in plain English with participants in our newsletters, in our clinics, and via the David Hide Asthma and Allergy Research Centre website. Our trial began in September 2019 and is expected to end in August 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This is a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized, investigator-led study to investigate the efficacy of a novel air purifier in improving asthma control in adults. The trial period of 18 months will facilitate the collection of robust data and will therefore generate clear signals. However, this extended trial duration may lead to patient withdrawal. Furthermore, this trial is conducted at a single center and in a location with a homogenous cohort of people, which may affect translatability. Nonetheless, it is hoped that the findings of this trial may help further inform clinicians regarding the utility of this novel device as an adjunct in asthma care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04729530; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04729530. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/28624.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.010

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicIndoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureFrench-language works237,207