MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954918427 · doi:10.1183/13993003.00598-2019

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA): 25 years later

2019· review· en· W2954918427 on OpenAlexaff
Louis‐Philippe Boulet, Helen K. Reddel, Eric D. Bateman, Søren Pedersen, J. Mark FitzGerald, Paul M. O’Byrne

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaFamily medicinePediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) was launched in 1993 under the auspices of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, USA, and the World Health Organization to produce a global strategy on asthma management and prevention. Now constituted as a non-profit entity, it continues to produce, on an annual basis, the most widely cited evidence-based report on the optimal management of asthma in both adults and children intended for global use. Although the GINA Report is often viewed and used as an asthma treatment guideline, it is designed to be a clinically oriented strategy document that supports the development of practice guidelines in different countries and regions.Other GINA products, including the report's pocket guides, teaching slide kits and implementation tools, are also offered free of charge for public use. The GINA Scientific Committee comprises recognised international experts from primary, secondary and tertiary centres of care who are actively involved in both the care of patients and research in asthma. The GINA Assembly is a forum for exchange of scientific information and discussions on initiatives to improve asthma care in various countries, focusing on implementation strategies. GINA plays a role in shaping research on the diagnosis and treatment of asthma and informs the development of point of care practice guides and decision support tools. GINA supports the objectives of raising awareness of asthma and improving access to therapy and quality of care for asthmatic patients, in addition to presenting and promoting continuously updated evidence-based treatment approaches for global use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0090.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations306
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207