The safety of long‐acting beta‐agonists: More evidence is needed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is controversy regarding the possibility that long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) may paradoxically contribute adversely to asthma mortality. While studies and meta-analyses indicate increased risk, epidemiological data indicate a slow fall in asthma mortality since the introduction of LABA. Advocates for LABA propose that mandatory simultaneous use of inhaled corticosteroids satisfactorily reduce any potential risk. In the face of lingering doubts, others propose that LABA should be withdrawn from use. In this pro-con article, Kazani et al. provide the rationale for a modified randomized controlled trial that would define the level of risk more clearly, and provide the basis for a clear judgment to be made. Sears argues that current knowledge about the risks associated with LABA, especially when prescribed as monotherapy, provides sufficient evidence for clinicians and licensing authorities alike, and that the logistics and likely outcomes for a large prospective study are unjustified.
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 | 0.128 | 0.194 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
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".