Blood eosinophils, fractional exhaled nitric oxide and the risk of asthma attacks in randomised controlled trials: protocol for a systemic review and control arm patient-level meta-analysis for clinical prediction modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The reduction of the risk of asthma attacks is a major goal of guidelines. The fact that type-2 inflammatory biomarkers identify a higher risk, anti-inflammatory responsive phenotype is potentially relevant to this goal. We aim to quantify the relation between blood eosinophils, exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and the risk of severe asthma attacks. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will be conducted by searching MEDLINE from January 1993 to April 2021. We will include RCTs that investigated the effect of fixed treatment(s) regimen(s) on severe asthma exacerbation rates over at least 24 weeks and reported a baseline value for blood eosinophils and FeNO. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and the methodological appraisal of the studies will be assessed by the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for RCTs. Study authors will be contacted to request anonymised individual participant data (IPD) for patients randomised to the trial's control arm. An IPD meta-analysis will be performed for multivariable prognostic modelling with performance assessment (calibration plots and the c-statistic) in a cross-validation by study procedure. The outcome to predict is the absolute number of severe asthma attacks to occur in the following 12 months if anti-inflammatory therapy is not changed (ie, annualised number of attacks requiring ≥3 days of systemic corticosteroids and/or hospitalisation if the patient was randomised to the control arm of an RCT). A summary prognostic equation and risk stratification chart will be reported as a basis for further analyses of individualised treatment benefit. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been reviewed by the relevant Oxford academic ethics committee and found to comprise fully anonymised data not requiring further ethical approbation. Results will be communicated in an international meeting and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021245337.
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 | 0.086 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.016 |
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".