The economic burden of uncontrolled asthma across Europe and the Asia-Pacific region: can we afford to not control asthma?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it