Global guidelines for asthma management. Summary of the current status and future challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) is an initiative started in the early 1990s to develop guidelines for asthma diagnosis and management that were applicable to both developed and developing countries. GINA now recommends that achieving overall asthma control is the goal of therapy. Overall asthma control consists of 2 domains: to achieve day-to-day (or current) asthma control and to minimize future risk measured by the absence of asthma exacerbations, the prevention of accelerated decline in lung function over time, and no side effects from medications. The GINA treatment paradigm consists of 5 treatment steps. At each step a preferred option and other alternatives are identified. Step 1 is as needed (prn) rapid-acting inhaled β2-agonist. The other 4 treatment steps include a controller option, ranging from low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) as the preferred treatment option at Step 2, to high-dose ICSs plus long-acting inhaled β2-agonist combinations together with oral corticosteroids at Step 5. Once the level of asthma control has been established, consideration should be given to reducing the amount of treatment. By contrast, if asthma is uncontrolled, treatment needs to be increased to the next step. In an effort to remain current, a yearly update, based on an extensive review of the previous year's peer-reviewed literature on asthma management, is available on the web version of the GINA guidelines.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.040 |
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".