Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are the mainstay of therapy in asthma, their use raises certain safety concerns. We review the articles appearing in the last year which have addressed the safety of ICSs when used in the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies suggest that patients with asthma as opposed to COPD do not experience an excess risk of pneumonia with ICS use. Patients with respiratory diseases are at increased risk of developing active tuberculosis and this excess risk is exacerbated by the use of high doses of ICSs. ICSs have systemic effects and one result appears to be an increase in the risk of diabetes onset and progression, especially at high doses of ICSs. When examining cases of glaucoma requiring therapy, there was no increase in risk with ICSs even at high current and cumulative doses. Finally, use of even high doses of ICSs during pregnancy does not appear to affect foetal adrenal function. SUMMARY: ICSs are a highly effective therapy in asthma and have an excellent safety profile at the low doses usually required in asthma. Adverse effects appear mostly at higher doses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".