Review Article 2003 Canadian Asthma Consensus Guidelines Executive Summary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma have been published over the last 15 years; however, there has been little focus on issues relating to asthma in childhood. Since the last revision of the 1999 Canadian Asthma Consensus Report, important new studies, particularly in children, have highlighted the need to incorporate new information into the asthma guidelines. The objectives of this article are to review the literature on asthma published between January 2000 and June 2003 and to evaluate the influence of new evidence on the recommendations made in the 1999 Canadian Asthma Consensus Report and its 2001 update, with a major focus on pediatric issues. Methods: The diagnosis of asthma in young children and prevention strategies, pharmacotherapy, inhalation devices, immunotherapy, and asthma education were selected for review by small expert resource groups.The reviews were discussed in June 2003 at a meeting under the auspices of the Canadian Network For Asthma Care and the Canadian Thoracic Society. Data published through December 2004 were subsequently reviewed by the individual expert resource groups. Results: This report evaluates early-life prevention strategies and focuses on treatment of asthma in children, emphasizing the importance of early diagnosis and preventive therapy, the benefits of additional therapy, and the essential role of asthma education. Conclusion: We generally support previous recommendations and focus on new issues, particularly those relevant to children and their families. This document is a guide for asthma management based on the best available published data and the opinion of health care professionals, including asthma experts and educators.
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 | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.018 |
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".