What Is New Since the Last (1999) Canadian Asthma Consensus Guidelines?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present document is to review the impact of new information on the recommendations made in the last (1999) Canadian Asthma Consensus Guidelines. It includes relevant published studies and observations or comments regarding what are considered to be the main issues in asthma management in children and adults in office, emergency department, hospital and clinical settings. Asthma is still insufficiently controlled in a large number of patients, and practice guidelines need to be integrated better with current care. This report re-emphasises the need for the following: objective measures of airflow obstruction to confirm the diagnosis of asthma suggested by the clinical evaluation; identification of contributing factors; and the establishment of a treatment plan to rapidly obtain and maintain optimal asthma control according to specific criteria. Recent publications support the essential role of asthma education and environmental control in asthma management. They further support the role of inhaled corticosteroids as the mainstay of anti-inflammatory therapy of asthma, and of both long acting beta2-agonists and leukotriene antagonists as effective means to improve asthma control when inhaled corticosteroids are insufficient. New developments, such as combination therapy, and recent major trials, such as the Children's Asthma Management Project (CAMP) study, are discussed.
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 | 0.036 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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.
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".