Patients’ perspectives and perceptions of asthma clinical remission: A global view
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical remission (CR) is an emerging, ambitious treatment goal for asthma patients. Prior survey results suggest the 4-point CR definition is appealing and achievable. As CR evolves with additional criteria, patient perspectives are necessary to understand the value and attainability. Aims and Objectives: Explore asthma patient perspectives on the additional criteria and management of CR. Methods: An international online community of 125 participants with moderate to severe asthma across 6 countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, USA) were surveyed on CR definitions and management practices using a qualitative-focused survey. CR was defined as OCS freedom, stable/ optimised lung function, symptom control, and no asthma exacerbations over 12 months. Additional criteria included work/school days missed, reduced rescue and maintenance inhaler use, and physician concordance. Response proportions were reported. Results: 80% of patients found the additional criteria to be appealing, with 72% rating them as achievable. Parameters beyond symptoms, such as work or school days missed, and reduction of inhaler dose were noted as desirable criteria. Regarding CR management, 67% reported discussing CR and additional criteria at some or most physician appointments; 78% of patients work in partnership with their doctor on their treatment plan, of which 31% report increased patient ownership. Conclusions: Patients consider the additional criteria to be appealing and attainable. Elements such as missed work and school days were valued as markers of increased quality of life; 4-point CR and additional criteria are becoming more integrated into patient-physician discussions. Funding: GSK (214851)
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".