MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410587392 · doi:10.1183/13993003.00370-2025

Are systemic corticosteroids needed for all asthma exacerbations?

2025· letter· en· W4410587392 on OpenAlexaff
William W. Busse, Paul M. O’Byrne

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2025
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthma exacerbationsInhaled corticosteroidsAsthmaIntensive care medicineAdrenal cortex hormonesInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extract Asthma exacerbations are potentially life-altering crises for many patients [1]. Despite this pivotal impact in the life cycle of asthma, the treatment for exacerbations has not changed in nearly 50 years. In particular, the therapeutic approach to exacerbations has not incorporated directions to identify which patient is most likely to benefit from the current cornerstone of treatment – systemic corticosteroids (SCS). Despite extensive clinical experience and research, major gaps exist on how to best utilise SCS during an asthma exacerbation, including the optimal therapeutic dose, the ideal duration of treatment to restore baseline conditions, and precise knowledge of the dominant and beneficial anti-inflammatory effects that SCS provide in the airways during an exacerbation [2]. An answer to part of this unmet need might begin with the recognition that patterns of airway inflammation in asthma are heterogeneous and contribute to predicting the efficacy of treatment [3]. At present, every asthma exacerbation is treated similarly with SCS and with the same expectancy of a positive response.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0140.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.007

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory Journal→Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→