Guidelines for Asthma Management: A Review and Comparison of 5 Current Guidelines
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it