Asthma control and management in the community: indices in 1997 compared with indices in 2002.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there was any change in indices of asthma control in population-based samples of patients with asthma between 1997 and 2002. DESIGN: We examined asthma control and treatment in the community using two cross-sectional studies carried out 5 years apart in 1997 and 2002. Pharmacists handed out the questionnaires to patients with asthma; patients completed the questionnaires themselves. SETTING: Community pharmacies in Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with physician-confirmed asthma attending pharmacies to fill prescriptions for asthma medications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Asthma control. RESULTS: In 1997 and 2002, 301 and 340 completed questionnaires were received, respectively. Mean age of respondents was 42 and 39 years and the female-to-male ratio was 1.3:1 and 1.4:1, respectively. Overall asthma control was achieved by 27% (1997) and 31% (2002) of subjects, a non-significant change. Regular inhaled corticosteroid use was reported by 63% (1997) and 65% (2002) of subjects; mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids reported decreased from 920 mug in 1997 to 765 mug in 2002 (P < .02), which might reflect adoption of the newer guideline recommendation for lower-dose inhaled corticosteroids in combination therapy rather than a decrease in severity of asthma. Fewer respondents reported being hospitalized for asthma in 2002 (P = .02). Self-management plans were used by 7% and 5% of subjects in 1997 and 2002, respectively. CONCLUSION: In general, asthma control and use of inhaled corticosteroids was similar in 1997 and 2002. There was no evidence that patient education on asthma had increased. Asthma control was poor in 1997 and had not improved by 2002.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".