A historical perspective: Are inhaled corticoids sufficient to control asthma?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhaled corticoids (ICS) made a dramatic breakthrough in the management of asthma in the late eighties resulting in a sharp reduction in morbidity and mortality in the following decades. Soon after, the association between ICS and long acting β2 agonists (LABA) soon became the gold standard of maintenance asthma treatment. With the advent of sputum induction it has become clear that asthma could not be considered as a unique entity but rather a display of several inflammatory phenotypes. Eosinophilic phenotype shows good response to ICS while non-eosinophilic, and in particular the neutrophilic phenotype, seems to be more resistant. Severe asthmatics show insufficient asthma control despite ICS/LABA. Those who are allergic and eosinophilic may benefit from add-on treatment with anti-IgE or anti-IL-5. Severe neutrophilic asthma could benefit from maintenance treatment with macrolides while thermoplasty offers some promise to those in whom airway smooth muscle hypertrophy contributes to disease instability.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".