Prospective Evaluation of Two Clinical Scores for Acute Asthma in Children 18 Months to 7 Years of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the discriminatory ability of two clinical asthma scores, the Preschool Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) and the Pediatric Asthma Severity Score (PASS), during an asthma exacerbation. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study in an academic pediatric emergency department (ED; 60,000 visits/year) conducted from March 2006 to October 2007. All patients 18 months to 7 years of age who presented for an asthma exacerbation were eligible. The primary outcome was a length of stay (LOS) of >6 hours in the ED or admission to the hospital. Clinical findings and components of the PRAM and the PASS were assessed by a respiratory therapist (RT) at the start of the ED visit and after 90 minutes of treatment. RESULTS: During the study period, 3,845 patients were seen in the ED for an asthma exacerbation. Of these, 291 were approached to participate, and eight refused. Moderate levels of discrimination were found between a LOS of >6 hours and/or admission and PRAM (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59 to 0.79) and PASS (AUC = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.80) as calculated at the start of the ED visit. Significant similar correlations were seen between the physician's judgment of severity and PRAM (r = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.42 to 0.65) and PASS (r = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.43 to 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: The PRAM and PASS clinical asthma scores appear to be measures of asthma severity in children with discriminative properties.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".