Does early intervention with inhaled corticosteroids alter the natural history of mild persistent asthma?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most patients, both adults and children, who have a new diagnosis of asthma and whose symptoms are mild but persistent, treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) should be recommended as soon as the diagnosis is made. This is a cost-effective and safe treatment. Patients should be cautioned that their asthma will not be cured with short-term treatment and that their symptoms may recur and their lung function may decline again if treatment is discontinued. If patients are reluctant to use ICS daily for long periods of time, it would be reasonable to delay the onset of treatment with ICS. They could subsequently be managed with intermittent therapy with either ICS or in combination with other medications, such as long-acting beta-agonists. Initial therapy with leukotriene receptor antagonist is not likely to be as effective as initial therapy with ICS. Since treatment adjustments based on eosinophil counts in sputum can reliably predict short-term responses to corticosteroids and help identify the appropriate add-on therapy, it may be useful to use this measurement, when available, to guide intermittent therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".