GINA 2020: Potential Impacts, Opportunities, and Challenges for Primary Care
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2019, it was reported that changes to asthma management reported in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) "…might be considered the most fundamental changes in asthma management in 30 years." These changes refer to the recommendation that the treatment of asthma in adolescents and adults would no longer include short-acting ß 2 -agonist (SABA) only, but that people with asthma should receive either symptom-driven inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-containing treatment (mild asthma) or daily ICS-containing treatment. The fundamental reason for this shift was driven by concerns about the risks and consequences associated with SABA-only treatment, the need to improve the day-to-day management of asthma symptoms to prevent exacerbations and emergent evidence. These recommendations have subsequently been reinforced and characterized in GINA 2020, and it is reasonable to say that they are significant, not only in terms of an asthma management framework but also as a management approach in practice. This opinion article specifically focuses on opportunities and challenges associated with the implementation of GINA 2020 in primary care practice that need to be recognized and addressed if the shift in asthma treatment paradigm is to be successfully implemented into day-to-day practice.
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 | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.007 |
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".