Effect of Hyssop (<i>Hyssopus officinalis</i>) Syrup on Mild to Moderate Asthma: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: L. is a medicinal herb that has shown anti-asthmatic effects and has also been recommended in Persian Medicine literature for its treatment. In this study, the efficacy of hyssop in mild to moderate asthma was investigated considering the patients' phenotype (having productive/non-productive cough). Materials and Methods: L. extract) or plain sugar syrup (5 ml twice daily) for 4 weeks as an adjuvant to routine treatment. Outcome measures were the Asthma Control Test (ACT), pulmonary function tests, Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR3), and wheezing severity. Results: The patients with productive cough in the hyssop group showed significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), ACT (at the 4th week), peak expiratory flow (PEF), maximal expiratory flow rate 25-75 (MEF25-75%), and wheezing severity. However, those with dry cough got worse regarding these indices. Conclusion: Hyssop syrup is effective for asthmatic patients with productive cough and a higher BMI, but it is not suitable for those experiencing a dry cough. It highlights the importance of syndrome differentiation in asthmatic patients and a posteriori subgrouping in data analysis. This approach enhances treatment accuracy and response rates while reducing adverse effects. Future trials are guaranteed to approve this categorization in asthma treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".