Asthma epidemiology: has the crisis passed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Asthma is a difficult, resource-intensive disease that can result in symptoms, hospitalization and, in rare cases, death. In the past few decades, there has been an abundance of evidence showing the prevalence of asthma to be increasing in certain regions. However, reports have recently emerged suggesting that asthma prevalence has stabilized. This has led to debate among researchers whether increases in asthma prevalence have come to an end. We reviewed recent literature in search of answers to the ongoing debate on whether the asthma crisis is over. RECENT FINDINGS: In contrast with past reports, several recent studies have reported a stabilization of asthma prevalence. However, based on repeated cross-sectional studies, findings regarding the stabilization of asthma prevalence have been inconsistent, especially when considering the heterogeneity of the disease, which can result in a variety of patterns concerning asthma diagnosis, symptoms, and allergic sensitization. Temporal trends considering physician visits, hospitalizations, and mortality have been more consistent, with stabilizing and decreasing patterns of asthma burden in recent years. SUMMARY: Because reasons for the original increases in asthma prevalence remain unclear, an explanation for the apparent stabilization of asthma prevalence reported in some studies also remains elusive. This is compounded by the difficulty in defining asthma accurately in population studies and inconsistencies in the results of prevalence estimation among repeated cross-sectional studies. Efforts should be made to continue monitoring asthma prevalence and to begin monitoring asthma prevalence in regions where environmental and social changes are occurring.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".