MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345335583 · doi:10.1155/2007/160691

Oral Corticosteroids in Asthma: A Review of Benefits and Risks

2007· review· en· W2345335583 on OpenAlexaff
R. Robert Schellenberg, Jonathan D. Adachi, Dennis Bowie, Jacques P. Brown, Lyn Guenther, Tina Kader, Graham E. Trope

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalUniversité LavalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreLondon Health Sciences CentreSt. Paul's HospitalMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaInhaled corticosteroidsIntensive care medicineMEDLINEAdrenal cortex hormonesInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) play an integral role in the pharmacological management of asthma, as well as a number of other inflammatory and autoimmune disorders. However, although their broad spectrum of effect is beneficial in controlling inflammation, it can also lead to undesirable effects on other cells, resulting in adverse effects. The purpose of the present review is to discuss the particular benefits of OCS and to outline the optimal role of these agents in the management of asthma, drawing on evidence‐based medicine and current clinical practice guidelines. The mandate for the present review also covers an analysis of the risk:benefit ratio as it pertains to OCS use in asthma. The more common adverse effects will be discussed and weighed against the possible benefits.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207