The revised 2014 GINA strategy report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This document reviews a major revision of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention that was published in 2014. The report aimed not only to update evidence-based recommendations for asthma diagnosis and management but also to innovate through a new format and layout to make its recommendations more clinically relevant and easier to implement. RECENT FINDINGS: The GINA 2014 report includes a new definition of asthma that recognizes the heterogeneity of the disease and its phenotypes, and a new chapter about the asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap syndrome. Among key messages, the report stresses that therapeutic decisions should be based not only on assessment of symptoms but also on risk factors for exacerbations, side effects of therapy and development of fixed airflow limitation. Asthma management includes not only medications but also nonpharmacological therapies and strategies, in a coordinated and personalized approach to individual patient care. On the basis of evidence about how to achieve behaviour change by health professionals, the recommendations are presented in a user-friendly format, with numerous tables, algorithms and flow-charts facilitating implementation. Background supporting material has been gathered online. SUMMARY: The GINA 2014 report provides updated and more easily implementable recommendations on optimal asthma management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".