Validation of the 30 Second Asthma Test™ as a Measure of Asthma Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary objective of asthma management is to help patients establish and maintain optimal disease control. Simple and efficient tools are needed to assess patient-reported symptoms so that they can be used with or without airway function to evaluate asthma control. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the validity of The 30 Second Asthma Test (GlaxoSmithKline Inc, Canada), based on the Canadian Asthma Guidelines, by estimating its relationship with criterion measures of control. RESULTS: The discriminative and diagnostic validity of The 30 Second Asthma Test was examined in a sample of 81 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of asthma. Based on a cut-off score of two or greater on The 30 Second Asthma Test, the overall agreement with specialist ratings was 65%, and 58% with per cent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s. The 30 Second Asthma Test scores distinguished between groups of patients who were classified based on the change in intensity of therapy. CONCLUSION: The results support the use of The 30 Second Asthma Test as a brief screening tool for asthma control.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".