Adherence and persistence in allergen immunotherapy (APAIT): A reporting checklist for retrospective studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adherence is essential for the long-term efficacy of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) and has been evaluated in numerous retrospective studies. However, there are no published guidelines for best practice in measuring and reporting adherence or persistence to AIT, which has resulted in substantial heterogeneity among existing studies. The 'adherence and persistence in AIT (APAIT)' checklist has been developed to guide the reporting, design and interpretation of retrospective studies that evaluate adherence or persistence to AIT in clinical practice. METHODS: Five existing checklists, focussing on study protocol design, the use of retrospective databases/patient registries, and the appraisal and reporting of observational studies, were identified and merged. Relevant items were selected and tailored to be specific to AIT. The content of the checklist was discussed by 11 experts from Europe, the United States and Canada, representing allergy, healthcare and life sciences, and health technology appraisal. RESULTS: The APAIT checklist presents a set of items that should either be included or at least considered, when reporting retrospective studies that assess adherence or persistence to AIT. Items are organized into four categories comprising study objective, design and methods, data analysis, and results and discussion. The checklist highlights the need for clarity and transparency in reporting and emphasizes the importance of considering potential sources of bias in retrospective studies evaluating adherence or persistence to AIT. CONCLUSIONS: The APAIT checklist provides a pragmatic guide for reporting retrospective adherence and persistence studies in AIT. Importantly, it identifies potential sources of bias and discusses how these influence outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".