Adult Asthma Consensus Guidelines Update 2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several sets of Canadian guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma have been published over the past 15 years. Since the last revision of the 1999 Canadian Asthma Consensus Report, important new studies have highlighted the need to incorporate new information into the asthma guidelines.OBJECTIVES: To review the literature on adult asthma management published between January 2000 and June 2003; to evaluate the influence of the new evidence on the recommendations made in the 1999 Canadian Asthma Consensus Guidelines and its 2001 update; and to report new recommendations on adult asthma management.METHODS: Three specific topics for which new evidence affected the previous recommendations were selected for review: initial treatment of asthma, add-on therapies in the treatment of asthma and asthma education. The resultant reviews were discussed in June 2003 at a meeting under the auspices of the Canadian Thoracic Society, and recommendations for adult asthma management were reviewed.RESULTS: The present report emphasises the importance of the early introduction of inhaled corticosteroids in symptomatic patients with mild asthma; stresses the benefit of adding additional therapy, preferably long-acting beta2-agonists, to patients incompletely controlled on low doses of inhaled corticosteroids; and documents the essential role of asthma education.CONCLUSION: The present report generally supports many of the previous recommendations published in the 1999 Canadian Asthma Consensus Report and provides higher levels of evidence for a number of those recommendations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".