The economic burden of uncontrolled asthma across Europe and the Asia-Pacific region: can we afford to not control asthma?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asthma is a treatable disease, yet in spite of considerable progress in knowledge and the availability of effective treatments, it continues to constitute a significant burden for health services and healthcare budgets and was ranked 25th amongst all causes of disability-adjusted life years in adults and children in 2001 [1]. The Asthma Insight and Reality (AIR) surveys of persons living with asthma, performed in several regions of the world, provide a record of the chronic and often daily personal burden borne by those who have this disease and of the fact that a minority of patients receive appropriate controller therapy [2–4]. Equally surprising is the fact that, at the time of these surveys, performed first in Europe [2], the USA and Canada, and later in the Asia-Pacific region [4], the situation appeared to be only marginally better in countries with more advanced and comprehensive health systems and greater expenditure on health. The surveys revealed high levels of persistent symptoms, unscheduled visits to doctors (averaging almost five times per year in some countries), emergency room visits in up to one-third of patients, and hospitalisation for asthma in up to 30% of patients each year [2–4]. Findings like these point to the need for reappraisal of management guidelines and goals of treatment, and for ensuring that caregivers and patients are made aware of these goals, how they might be achieved, and of the benefits of optimal treatment. Amongst the many reasons why treatment remains suboptimal are lack of recognition on the part of patients and caregivers of how poorly patients' asthma is being controlled, uncertainty about what can be achieved, and concerns about the cost and safety of treatment [2–5]. Some of these points …
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".