Comparison of Asthma Control Criteria: Importance of Spirometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the measurements of asthma control using Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) Asthma Management Consensus Summary and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines composite indices with and without spirometry. METHODS: Asthma control parameters were extracted from electronic medical records (EMRs) of patients ≥6 years old at two primary care sites. Asthma control ratings calculated according to CTS and GINA criteria were compared. RESULTS: Data were available from 113 visits by 93 patients, aged 6-85 years (38.7 ± 24.8; mean ± SD). The proportion of visits at which individuals' asthma was completely controlled was 22.1% for CTS symptoms only and 9.7% for CTS with spirometry (p < .01); and 17.7% versus 14.1% for GINA symptoms only versus symptoms with spirometry (p = .125). CONCLUSIONS: Asthma control ratings using GINA and CTS criteria are discordant in more than half of the patients deemed "in control" by at least one scale. Differences in the spirometry criterion threshold are primarily responsible for this discordance. Failure to include spirometry as part of the control index consistently overestimates asthma control and may underestimate future risk of exacerbations.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".