Allergen immunotherapy in MASK‐air users in real‐life: Results of a Bayesian mixed‐effects model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) on allergic rhinitis has been provided mostly by randomised controlled trials, with little data from real-life studies. OBJECTIVE: app: those receiving sublingual AIT (SLIT), those receiving subcutaneous AIT (SCIT), and those receiving no AIT. METHODS: data of European users with self-reported grass pollen allergy, comparing the data reported by patients receiving SLIT, SCIT and no AIT. Outcome variables included the daily impact of allergy symptoms globally and on work (measured by visual analogue scales-VASs), and a combined symptom-medication score (CSMS). We applied Bayesian mixed-effects models, with clustering by patient, country and pollen season. RESULTS: We analysed a total of 42,756 days from 1,093 grass allergy patients, including 18,479 days of users under AIT. Compared to no AIT, SCIT was associated with similar VAS levels and CSMS. Compared to no AIT, SLIT-tablet was associated with lower values of VAS global allergy symptoms (average difference = 7.5 units out of 100; 95% credible interval [95%CrI] = -12.1;-2.8), lower VAS Work (average difference = 5.0; 95%CrI = -8.5;-1.5), and a lower CSMS (average difference = 3.7; 95%CrI = -9.3;2.2). When compared to SCIT, SLIT-tablet was associated with lower VAS global allergy symptoms (average difference = 10.2; 95%CrI = -17.2;-2.8), lower VAS Work (average difference = 7.8; 95%CrI = -15.1;0.2), and a lower CSMS (average difference = 9.3; 95%CrI = -18.5;0.2). CONCLUSION: In patients with grass pollen allergy, SLIT-tablet, when compared to no AIT and to SCIT, is associated with lower reported symptom severity. Future longitudinal studies following internationally-harmonised standards for performing and reporting real-world data in AIT are needed to better understand its 'real-world' effectiveness.
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 | 0.109 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".