Does the current stepwise approach to asthma pharmacotherapy encourage over‐treatment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the past 20 years, asthma pharmacotherapy has been described in clinical practice guidelines in terms of a stepwise approach, with medications and/or doses increased if asthma is not well-controlled, and reduced once good control is achieved and maintained. Although many patients with asthma are untreated, there are also significant problems with over-treatment once regular controller therapy is commenced. This increases the cost of treatment and exposes patients to unnecessary risks of side-effects. The present pro-con debate addresses the question of whether the stepwise approach itself leads to over-treatment. Two asthma experts discuss factors for and against this proposition, identify issues on which more research is needed, and suggest areas in which guidelines can be changed in order to facilitate more appropriate prescribing of asthma medications. These strategies include better validation of the concepts underlying asthma treatment recommendations, stronger recommendations that every treatment change should be followed up with a scheduled review using evidence-based assessment tools and incorporation of phenotype-specific considerations into treatment recommendations. In addition, the process for development and dissemination of clinical practice guidelines should ensure that recommendations are easily understood, feasible to implement, and relevant to everyday asthma care and the needs and concerns of patients and clinicians.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".