The paradoxes of asthma management: time for a new approach?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
-agonist (SABA) use, instead of using controller medication. This behaviour might be attributable to several paradoxes in the current treatment approach. These paradoxes include the recommended use of a SABA bronchodilator alone at Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) step 1, despite the fact that asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease. At step 1, the patient has autonomy and their perception of need and disease control is accepted, but at higher asthma treatment steps a fixed-dose approach is recommended, irrespective of symptom severity. The unintended consequence is the establishment of a pattern of early over-reliance on SABA. New approaches that avoid these paradoxes are needed, such as patient-adjusted therapy, in which patients adopt a symptom-driven approach using a combination reliever/controller. We propose that SABA reliever monotherapy should be replaced by a combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and formoterol, or similar rapid-onset bronchodilator, as reliever therapy for patients at GINA steps 1 or 2. This will ensure early and more regular administration of a controller medication. However, a significant body of clinical data will be needed before this approach can be approved by regulatory authorities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".