Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asthma mortality increased sharply in New Zealand in 1977, prompting a national investigation into circumstances of asthma deaths. Subsequent observations of improved asthma control in subjects withdrawn from regular beta(2)-agonist treatment raised the question of whether asthma severity and, therefore, mortality could relate to frequent beta-agonist use. A randomized controlled trial of regular inhaled fenoterol versus as-needed bronchodilator use showed worsened asthma control during regular treatment despite concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids. Assessment of these findings led to delay in the publishing of the American Asthma Guidelines, which were modified to suggest caution in using beta(2)-agonist treatments. Simultaneously, case control studies in New Zealand suggested that prescription of fenoterol was a substantial risk factor for asthma mortality. The causal association was hotly debated, but increasing evidence pointed to an adverse effect of fenoterol on asthma severity and, hence, mortality. This was supported by dramatic decreases in both morbidity and mortality when fenoterol was effectively withdrawn from use in New Zealand. The link between worsening asthma morbidity and mortality, and the use of potent short-acting beta(2)-agonists fulfills the Bradford Hill criteria for attributing causality. Application of evidence from randomized, controlled trials of short-acting beta-agonist use has led to a major shift in therapy in asthma to the recommendation of as-needed use only of short-acting beta-agonists and decreased patient reliance on regular bronchodilator therapy.
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 | 0.026 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".