MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416222844 · doi:10.2196/78526

Guided Inhalation via Electronic Monitoring in Children With Uncontrolled Asthma (the IMAGINE Study): Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4416222844 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Esther Sportel, Kris L. L. Movig, Bernard J. Thio, Mattiènne van der Kamp, Job van der Palen, Marjolein Brusse‐Keizer

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialAsthmaRemote patient monitoringInhalation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pediatric asthma is the most common chronic illness among children in the Netherlands. Scheduled hospital visits provide limited insight into therapy adherence and inhalation technique, which are critical for disease control. Smart inhalers that provide immediate feedback may offer a solution for monitoring and improving these parameters at home, leading to better asthma control. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to improve asthma control through immediate feedback on therapy adherence and inhalation technique, with the use of a smart inhaler. METHODS: The IMAGINE (Improving Adherence by Guiding Inhalation via Electronic Monitoring) study was a randomized controlled trial consisting of 3 phases: an observational run-in phase in which adherence and technique were recorded, a randomized phase with feedback for the intervention group and recording for the control group, followed by an observational phase with only recording for both groups. Asthma control was measured with clinical outcomes including predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, lung function reversibility, lung function variability, the Asthma Control Test, and the Childhood Asthma Control Test. RESULTS: Between October 2019 and October 2023, a total of 34 children were enrolled and randomized. Overall, improvements were observed at the end of phase 2 in clinical parameters (reversibility, lung function variability, Asthma Control Test, and Childhood Asthma Control Test), except for predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second. However, no significant differences between the intervention and control groups over time were observed. At the end of phase 2, 87% (13/15) of control participants and 78% (10/13) of intervention participants met one or more predefined clinical criteria. Inhalation technique and therapy adherence did not differ over time between the groups (P=.70 and P=.14, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: While smart inhaler feedback did not lead to better outcomes compared with no feedback, clinical improvements were observed in both groups. Future studies should explore how adaptive smart inhaler interventions can be optimized to support personalized care and enhance patient ownership in asthma management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform NL-OMON50093; https://tinyurl.com/yws24rxy. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-020-04694-4.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207