MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117425030 · doi:10.1513/pats.2306028

Pharmacologic Interventions to Reduce the Risk of Asthma Exacerbations

2004· review· en· W2117425030 on OpenAlexaff
Paul M. O’Byrne

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Thoracic Society · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonSt. Joseph's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormoterolMedicineBudesonideAsthmaExacerbationInhalerBudesonide/formoterolAsthma exacerbationsCombination therapySalmeterolIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are known to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations and asthma fatalities. In addition, an increased dose of ICS at the onset of exacerbation can reduce the need for systemic corticosteroids, although this may require a fourfold increase in dose. The overuse of short-acting beta(2)-agonists or long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists, used as monotherapy, increases these risks. By contrast, the use of long-acting beta(2)-agonists together with ICS has been demonstrated to reduce the doses of ICS needed for ideal asthma control, as well as to reduce asthma exacerbations. This has been best demonstrated in the Formoterol and Corticosteroids Establishing Therapy and Oxis and Pulmicort Turbuhaler in the Management of Asthma studies, which demonstrated that the combination of inhaled budesonide and formoterol reduced the risk of asthma exacerbations over that achieved by budesonide alone. Even the "as needed" use of inhaled formoterol added to ICS reduces asthma exacerbations. The combination inhaler, Symbicort, containing both budesonide and formoterol, reduced the risk of asthma exacerbations to a similar extent as the monocomponents, given separately. Treatment with either leukotriene receptor antagonists or anti-IgE also reduces the risks of asthma exacerbations, but the magnitude of the benefit compared with the combination of ICS and long-acting beta(2)-agonists is not yet known.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207