Confirmation of asthma in an era of overdiagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was recently shown that 30% of adults with a physician diagnosis of asthma did not have asthma when objectively assessed using a four-step algorithm involving serial spirometry, bronchial challenge testing and subsequent tapering of asthma medications. The objective of the present study was to determine how many steps in the algorithm were required in order to confirm asthma, and whether any patient-related variables were associated with earlier asthma confirmation. A total of 540 subjects with a previous physician diagnosis of asthma were randomly recruited from the community. The number of subjects confirmed with asthma at each study visit was calculated. Regression analysis was used to determine variables associated with earlier asthma confirmation. Of the 499 subjects who completed the diagnostic algorithm, 346 (69%) had asthma confirmed and 150 (30%) had asthma excluded. Of subjects in whom asthma was confirmed, including those using regular asthma controlling medications, >90% were confirmed with only one or two study visits, by either pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry or a single bronchial challenge test. Only 46 (9%) out of 499 subjects required tapering of asthma medications and repeated bronchial challenge tests for exclusion or confirmation of asthma. Lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s and younger age were associated with earlier asthma confirmation. For the majority with a previous physician diagnosis of asthma, only pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry and a single methacholine challenge test are required in order to confirm 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 | 0.006 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".