MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Perception of Biologics in Adults With Asthma and CRSwNP: International Survey Results

2025· article· en· W4410268445 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruth Tal‐Singer, Karen Willard‐Gallo, Mark A. Luttmann, Madison Sprankle, Jonathan Reynolds, Irantzu Muerza, Hannah Jaffee, Lilya Gentet, Anna Vichiendilokkul, Cristina Jacomelli, Novak, Valter Moreno, Robert A. Wise

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaPerceptionImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: Asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) can be treated with biologics that target Type 2 inflammation. The survey objective was to seek insight into perceptions of biologics in adults with asthma, CRSwNP, or both. Methods: An anonymous survey was conducted online February-May 2024 recruited participants aged ≥18 years from the US, Canada, UK, Germany, Italy, France, or Spain through social media and by Survey Monkey. Results: Of 1566 survey participants (56.7% asthma, 24.8% CRSwNP, 18.5% both), 52.5% were female, and 65.2% were ages 25-54 years; 14% (195/1410 responses) were currently using a biologic; 69% (135/195 responses) had been on the biologic for less than 2 years. Of those receiving a biologic, 37% (73/195) inject it themselves and feel confident doing so. The remaining 63% either worry they are not doing it correctly or have someone else do the injection. Participants over age 45 years appear more likely than younger participants to self-inject and feel confident doing so, but more than 25% of those over the age of 65 receive the injection from a family member or friend.Nearly half (42%; 82/195) felt that taking the biologic was a repeating reminder of the chronic nature of their condition; 33% worry about missing a dose or forgetting to take their injection. When given a list of reasons why people may not take their medications exactly as prescribed by their doctor, participants selected frequency of the medication (e.g., too often) as the top reason, followed by the way the medication needs to be taken (injection). A third of participants not currently on biologics (34%; 390/1156) reported they had taken an injectable biologic in the past which they had stopped taking. The top reasons for stopping treatment were the injection/device was too difficult, getting to the clinic was too difficult, and the injection was too expensive (Figure). More than two-thirds (68%; 934/1378) would consider a biologic injection if it was once every 6 months as part of their regular checkup; approximately half would consider a biologic treatment if the injection was twice a month (48%), once a month (53%), or every other month (56%). People with asthma and/or CRSwNP on biologics worry about doing the injections properly and view the them as a constant reminder of their chronic condition. Conclusion: Access to biologics that can be administered less frequently and in an easier manner may alleviate some of the burden of self-injection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→