European Respiratory Society guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although asthma is very common, affecting 5-10% of the population, the diagnosis of asthma in adults remains a challenge in the real world, which results in both over- and under-diagnosis. A taskforce was set up by the European Respiratory Society to systematically review the literature on the diagnostic accuracy of tests used to diagnose asthma in adult patients and provide recommendations for clinical practice.The taskforce defined eight Population, Index, Comparator and Outcome questions that were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The taskforce utilised the outcomes to develop an evidence-based diagnostic algorithm, with recommendations for a pragmatic guideline for everyday practice that was directed by real-life patient experiences.The taskforce supports the initial use of spirometry followed by bronchodilator reversibility testing (if airway obstruction is present). If initial spirometry fails to show obstruction, further tests should be performed in the following order: exhaled nitric oxide fraction, peak expiratory flow variability, or, in secondary care, bronchial challenge. We present the thresholds for each test that are compatible with a diagnosis of asthma in the presence of current symptoms.The taskforce reinforces spirometry as a priority and recognises the value of measuring blood eosinophils and serum immunoglobulin E to phenotype the patient. Measuring gas trapping by body plethysmography in patients with preserved forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio deserves further attention. The taskforce draws attention to the difficulty of making a correct diagnosis in patients already receiving inhaled corticosteroids; the comorbidities that may obscure diagnosis; the importance of phenotyping; and the necessity of considering the patient experience in the diagnostic process.
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.019 |
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".