The Effect of Inhaled Salbutamol on Mannitol Evoked Cough Responses: A Double-Blind Randomized Placebo Controlled 2-way Cross-Over Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Salbutamol may have effects on both airway nerves and smooth muscle. The aim of this study was to assess the inhibitory effects of salbutamol on cough responses to inhaled mannitol in allergic asthmatics(AA) and healthy controls(HC). Method: A double-blind randomized placebo controlled 2-way cross-over study was conducted in 20 subjects with mild steroid naïve AA and 20 HC. The maximum number of coughs evoked by mannitol was denoted Emax. Modelling was used to estimate the mean coughs at each dose of mannitol and to compare the effects of intervention (salbutamol vs. placebo) on the cough dose response. Results: Age, sex, baseline lung function were similar between groups. Across both groups salbutamol demonstrated a 26% reduction in Emax compared with placebo (mean coughs 6.04(95% C.I 5.5-6.5) vs.8.12(7.7-8.6), p<0.001). The reduction in coughs after salbutamol compared with placebo were similar in both AA and HC (Fig 1A). Salbutamol prevented bronchoconstriction in AA but no changes in HC demonstrated (Fig 1B). Conclusion: Salbutamol reduces mannitol evoked coughs to a similar extent in both AA and HC. In HC this occurred without any changes in FEV1. Salbutamol may have anti-neuronal properties in inhibiting cough responses. The receptors and nerves involved require further investigation. Funding Sources: Allergen NCE (Canada), Pharmaxis donated mannitol kits.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".