MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Determinants of Oral Corticosteroids Use in the Treatment of Asthma Exacerbation

2025· article· en· W4410268776 on OpenAlexaff
A.-S. Trudeau, J. Corby, Marie‐Ève Boulay, Ambuj Roy, Geneviève Boutin, Karla Bergeron, Pierre-Alexis Lépine, François Maltais, Krystelle Godbout, Aurore Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaExacerbationInhaled corticosteroidsAsthma exacerbationsIntensive care medicineAdrenal cortex hormonesMEDLINECorticosteroidInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale. Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are the mainstay of treatment for severe asthma exacerbation, but some patients do not seem to benefit from them. This can be attributed to a misdiagnosis as many exacerbations are not confirmed with objective tests. It is also possible that a number of exacerbations are not T2-driven and may not require OCS treatment, but this hypothesis has not been validated. Studies using a comprehensive assessment of exacerbations leading to personalized management approaches are lacking. Aim. To compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients treated or not with OCS following a systematic assessment of their exacerbation. Methods. This study is part of a real-life interventional cohort study on optimizing the management of asthma exacerbation. Adult patients with severe asthma presenting symptoms of an exacerbation were recruited for a complete assessment that included pulmonary function tests, blood tests, induced sputum analysis and FeNO measurement. Then, a respirologist confirmed the exacerbation and decided on a treatment plan, which could include OCS. A follow-up call was performed 14 days later to assess outcomes. T2 exacerbations were defined as ≥1 of the following: FeNO ≥25 ppb, sputum eosinophils ≥2%, blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/uL. FEV1 <80% of personal's best was also considered a possible requirement for OCS. Unfavorable outcome was defined as either an initiation or prolongation of antibiotics and/or OCS, or a re-consultation (unplanned medical visit or emergency room visit). Results. We included 66 patients (34 (52%) women, mean (range) age 61 (19-83) years old), of whom 7 came twice, for a total of 73 visits analysed. Of these, 25/73 visits (34%) resulted in OCS prescription. A T2 profile and/or an FEV1 <80% of the personal's best was seen in 18/25 (72%) of the OCS-treated patients and 22/48 (46%) of those not treated with OCS. Unfavorable outcome was reported by 5/25 (20%) patients in the OCS-treated group, 3 of them (60%) presented a T2 profile. In the non-OCS group, 18/48 (38%) visits ended up with an unfavorable outcome, of which 9 (50%) showed a T2 profile. Conclusion. The decision of how to treat severe asthma exacerbations is, to some extent, influenced by the presence of a T2 profile and/or fall in FEV1 but also by other factors possibly related to heterogeneity in the decision process of physicians involved in the study. This reflects the lack of standardized guidelines and the need for a more tailored approach to managing asthma exacerbations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→