Asthma Control in Canada Remains Suboptimal: The Reality of Asthma Control (TRAC) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two Canadian studies showed that 55% of patients with asthma had daily symptoms (in 1996) and that 57% of patients suffered from poorly controlled asthma (in 1999). OBJECTIVES: To assess the state of asthma control of adult Canadians, and asthma knowledge and practices of Canadian physicians actively involved in the care of patients with asthma. METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted with adults 18 to 54 years of age who had been diagnosed with asthma at least six months before the survey, who did not have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and who had a smoking history of fewer than 20 pack-years. Physicians were surveyed by telephone and mail. The surveys took place between April and August 2004. RESULTS: Almost all (97%) of the 893 patients believed that they had controlled asthma; however, only 47% had controlled disease according to symptom-based guideline criteria. Just 39% of 463 physicians based their treatment recommendations on the Canadian asthma guidelines most or all of the time, despite having a high awareness of them. Only 11% of patients had written action plans, and one-half of patients with action plans did not use them regularly. Almost three-quarters of patients expressed concerns about taking inhaled corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: Since the last major national survey, guideline implementation has not resulted in significant changes in asthma-related morbidity. Effective means of knowledge transfer should be developed and implemented to improve the translation of guideline recommendations into care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".