Asthma guidelines: the Global Initiative for Asthma in relation to national guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To compare and contrast national asthma guidelines with the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) strategy for asthma management and prevention. RECENT FINDINGS: The common goal of GINA and national asthma guidelines is to improve asthma care using the best evidence available from published data. This evidence-based approach has evolved from an initial perspective of expert opinion but with that evolution has not always considered the breadth of asthma phenotypes. GINA and national guidelines differ in a number of ways. GINA reviews available data and updates the core document and recommendations based on the latest data on a yearly basis to offer local, regional and national guidelines materials needed for knowledge mobilization. It remains the purview of those organizations to structure and implement those locally appropriate guidelines. SUMMARY: Both GINA and national guidelines have furthered asthma care to narrow the care gap from what is known to how asthma care is delivered, hopefully in a more directed, personalized manner. As well, both GINA and national guidelines have helped to shape the direction of research for the future benefit of children and their families.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".