A randomised trial of oral prednisone for cystic fibrosis pulmonary exacerbation treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Elevated markers of systemic and pulmonary inflammation are associated with failure to recover lung function following pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF). Our aim was to determine whether adjuvant oral prednisone treatment would improve recovery of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) % pred in CF pulmonary exacerbations not responding to antibiotic therapy. Methods This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in pwCF treated with intravenous antibiotics for a pulmonary exacerbation. At day 7, those who had not returned to >90% baseline FEV1% pred were randomised to adjuvant prednisone 1 mg·kg−1twice daily (maximum 60 mg·day−1) or placebo for 7 days. The primary outcome was the difference in proportion of subjects who recovered >90% baseline FEV1% pred at day 14 ofi.v.antibiotic therapy. Results 173 subjects were enrolled, with 76 randomised. 50% of subjects in the prednisone group recovered baseline FEV1on day 14 compared with 39% of subjects in the placebo group (difference of 11%, 95% CI −11–34%; p=0.34). The mean±sdchange in FEV1% pred from day 7 to day 14 was 6.8±8.8% predicted in the prednisone group and 4.6±6.9% predicted in the placebo group (mean difference 2.2% predicted, 95% CI −1.5–5.9%; p=0.24). Time to subsequent exacerbation was not prolonged in prednisone-treated subjects (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.45–1.53; p=0.54). Conclusions This study failed to detect a difference in FEV1% pred recovery between adjuvant oral prednisone and placebo treatment in pwCF not responding at day 7 ofi.v.antibiotic therapy for pulmonary exacerbations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".