UNDERSTANDING PATIENT PERCEPTIONS OF ASTHMA: RESULTS OF THE ASTHMA CONTROL AND EXPECTATIONS (ACE) SURVEY
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spite of support among UK healthcare professionals for asthma guidelines, studies continue to show that many patients fail to reach the suggested management goals. Patient expectations and poor communication may be factors in this failure. This survey assessed patients' asthma control, expectations in respect of asthma and communication with healthcare professionals. A structured questionnaire, designed for self-completion, was developed and distributed to asthma patients at participating pharmacies. A total of 1031 questionnaires were returned. Most of the respondents, even among those feeling well, reported lifestyle restrictions because of asthma. These restrictions were not generally discussed with healthcare professionals. One-third did not perceive the benefits of inhaled corticosteroids. Low expectation may be a major contributor to the poor control seen in this survey. The failure to discuss lifestyle restrictions and symptom levels with healthcare professionals gives little scope for recommendation of appropriate and adequate treatment. Improved communication between healthcare professionals and patients may help such understanding and raise patient expectations.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| 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 it