Comment on: International ERS/ATS guidelines on definition, evaluation and treatment of severe asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We commend CHUNG et al. [1] for their effort on consolidating recommendations for severe asthma in the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guidelines on the definition, evaluation and treatment of severe asthma.However, we were concerned by the recommendation that bronchial thermoplasty be performed ''only in the context of an Institutional Review Board-approved independent systemic registry or a clinical study'' [1].In addition to the positive benefits observed in our patients, bronchial thermoplasty has been demonstrated to be effective in several studies, including the pivotal AIR2 (Asthma Intervention Research 2) trial which resulted in this therapy's approval by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2010 [2, 3].It has been shown to improve asthma-related quality of life and reduce exacerbations, emergency room visits and hospitalisations.Furthermore, these benefits have been sustained for .5 years with no significant safety concerns [4, 5].We agree that it is important to monitor the efficacy and safety of this and other new therapies in the real world, and that studies to better understand phenotypes of responding patients are warranted.However, mandating that this therapy be limited to the research setting will prevent many patients suffering from severe asthma with ongoing unmet needs from gaining access to bronchial thermoplasty and gaining better control of their disease.Given the demonstrated long-term efficacy (.5 years) and safety of this therapy, and since the therapeutic options for patients with severe asthma are currently limited, we feel that it is important to include bronchial thermoplasty for consideration as an effective treatment option for patients with severe refractory asthma. @ERSpublicationsBronchial thermoplasty is a safe and effective therapy for patients with severe, refractory asthma http://ow.ly/vhgS0
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 | 0.013 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.064 | 0.059 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.034 |
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".