<i>Letter:</i> Respiratory Effectiveness Group Position Statement: Inhaler Choice: Balancing Personalized Health Care and Environmental Responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: I nhaled medications are essential in managing asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Delivery systems include dry powder inhalers (DPIs), pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), soft mist inhalers, and nebulizers.Historically, pMDIs used chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants, contributing to ozone depletion.While pharmaceutical companies have transitioned to CFC-free pMDIs, there are now international efforts to phase down propellants with high global warming potential (GWP), with some governments and societies recommending switching from pMDIs due to their GWP. 1 Our PositionThe Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG) is a not-forprofit initiative established by international experts in real-life research in respiratory medicine.While we support environmental responsibility, inhaler choice should be personalized, balancing patient needs and environmental concerns.We strongly oppose switching an inhaler for nonmedical reasons without considering possible clinical consequences of a mismatch between the inhaler's characteristics and the patient's abilities and preferences.A global study by REG, 2 surveyed 468 health care professionals (HCPs) and 270 asthma/COPD patients across 39 countries
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.011 |
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".