The Debate About the Use of Long-Acting Inhaled ß-agonists in Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-acting inhaled β 2 -agonists (LABAs) have been available for the treatment of asthma for almost 30 years; there is, however, concern about their safety with regular use.There is widespread agreement that LABA should not be used as monotherapy by asthmatic patients, because, while they are very effective in providing symptom relief, they have no inherent anti-inflammatory properties, and may increase the risk of asthma mortality.When used together with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), ideally in the same inhaler, ICS/ LABA combinations have been shown to improve asthma control and reduce risk of asthma exacerbations.Concerns about the risks of severe asthma related events, such as hospitalization, intubation or death, associated with the use of ICS/LABA combinations have been allayed by the results of several recent large randomized safety trials conducted both in adults and children.(BRN Rev.
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 | 0.060 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".