The Impact of Diagnosed and Undiagnosed Current Asthma in the General Adult Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restrictive definitions of current asthma are used in epidemiological studies to achieve a highly specific classification of subjects. However, undiagnosed asthmatics should be taken into account to correctly evaluate the impact of the disease in the general population. METHODS: In an Italian multi-centre cross-sectional survey carried out in 1998-2000, 18,647 responders (20-44 years old) to a screening questionnaire were classified as having physician-diagnosed current asthma or current respiratory symptoms. Similarities in the risk factor profile and in the socioeconomic burden were considered suggestive of undiagnosed current asthma. RESULTS: In Italy, the prevalence of physician-diagnosed current asthma was 4.9% (95% CI 4.4-5.4), while that of 'asthma attacks and/or use of anti-asthmatic drugs in the past 12 months without a diagnosis of asthma' (ADWD) was 1.5% (95% CI 1.3-1.7). Allergic rhinitis was highly associated with diagnosed current asthma [relative risk ratio (RRR) 12.48; 95% CI 9.12-17.07; reference category: neither asthma during lifetime nor current respiratory symptoms] and with ADWD (RRR 8.42; 95% CI 6.33-11.19). Chronic cough/phlegm was homogeneously associated with all the respiratory conditions, and the strongest relationship was with ADWD (RRR 7.79; 95% CI 4.95-12.25). Subjects with ADWD and diagnosed current asthmatics were characterised by high and homogeneous percentages of individuals who reported productivity losses (19.0 and 15.1%) and hospitalisations (9.2 and 6.2%) because of respiratory problems in the past year. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of current asthma seems to be largely underestimated among Italian adults, since the individuals with ADWD may be undiagnosed current asthmatics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".