The ARIA/EAACI criteria for antihistamines: an assessment of the efficacy, safety and pharmacology of desloratadine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The definition of allergic rhinitis and the classification of its severity and treatment have advanced in recent years following the publication of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact of Asthma (ARIA) document. The ARIA and the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (ARIA/EAACI) have published a set of recommendations that outline the pharmacological and clinical criteria to be met by medications commonly used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. METHODS: An international group of experts met to assess the profile of the antihistamine, desloratadine, under the ARIA/EAACI criteria. Data on desloratadine were collected from peer-reviewed clinical studies and review articles, which were corroborated and augmented by comprehensive public access documents from the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Based on this systematic review, it was concluded that the efficacy, safety and pharmacology of desloratadine broadly meet the ARIA/EAACI criteria for antihistamines.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".