Early interventions with inhaled corticosteroids in asthma: benefits and risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: the present review examines the effects of early intervention with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) on clinical efficacy and natural history of asthma based on two recent clinical trials: the Inhaled Steroid Treatment as Regular Therapy in Early Asthma (START) and Prevention of Early Asthma in Kids (PEAK) trials, and a comparison of the effect of regular vs. intermittent therapy based on the Improving Asthma Control Trial (IMPACT). RECENT FINDINGS: in most patients, both adults and children, who have a new diagnosis of asthma and whose symptoms are mild but persistent, treatment with ICS should be recommended as soon as the diagnosis is made. This is a cost-effective and well tolerated treatment. However, symptoms may recur and lung function may decline again if treatment is discontinued. SUMMARY: ICS is the most cost-effective initial treatment for both adults and children with a new diagnosis of asthma. If patients are reluctant to use ICS daily for long periods, it would be reasonable to delay the onset of treatment with ICS. Initial therapy with leukotriene receptor antagonist is not likely to be as effective as initial therapy with ICS. Biomarkers of airway inflammation such as sputum cell counts and exhaled nitric oxide are probably not necessary to treat patients with mild intermittent asthma.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".