MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273486699 · doi:10.4187/respcare.08530751

Guidelines for Asthma Management: A Review and Comparison of 5 Current Guidelines

2008· review· en· W2273486699 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy R Myers

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineAsthmaAsthma managementFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first clinical practice guidelines for the assessment and management of asthma were published over 20 years ago in New Zealand and Australia. During the same period, British and Scottish groups were collaborating on a United Kingdom version of asthma guidelines. Shortly after the introduction of the New Zealand and Canadian guidelines, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the United States National Institutes of Health participated in 2 additional asthma guideline endeavors, which were published in the early 1990s. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute formed the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program to develop asthma guidelines for the United States, and participated with an international task force to develop guidelines for the treatment of asthma in all countries, which resulted in the formation of the Global Initiative for Asthma in the mid-1990s. The asthma guidelines issued by professional societies and other groups prior to the late 1990s were primarily based on consensus or expert opinion in each guideline committee, though those opinions were based on the available studies. The early guidelines played a vital role in bridging the gap between various treatment options and recent discoveries in basic science, and served as the vehicle to implementation into daily clinical practice. Asthma guidelines have been published and revised in dozens of countries around the world and have become reputable directives or "road maps" in asthma diagnosis, treatment, and management for patients of all ages. The guidelines have similar formats. The dissemination and implementation of the early guidelines was inconsistent, and they were criticized for not being evidence-based. As the knowledge of asthma pathophysiology continues to expand, along with basic science research on asthma diagnosis, treatment, and management, as well as education of the asthma patient, it is essential that the asthma guidelines be frequently updated and based on evidence-based-medicine processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0260.026
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.266
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207