Asthma and protracted bronchitis: Who fares better during an acute respiratory infection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Acute respiratory infections (ARI) are common in children, and symptoms range from days to weeks. The aim of this study was to determine if children with asthma have more severe ARI episodes compared with children with protracted bronchitis and controls. METHODS: Parents prospectively scored their child's next ARI using the Canadian acute respiratory illness and flu scale (CARIFS) and a validated cough diary (on days 1-7, 10 and 14 of illness). Children were age- and season-matched. RESULTS: On days 10 and 14 of illness, children with protracted bronchitis had significantly higher median CARIFS when compared with children with asthma and healthy controls. On day 14, the median CARIFS were: asthma = 4.1 (interquartile range (IQR) 4.0), protracted bronchitis = 19.6 (IQR 25.8) and controls = 4.1 (IQR 5.25). The median cough score was significantly different between groups on days 1, 7, 10 and 14 (P < 0.001). A significantly higher proportion of children with protracted bronchitis (63%) were still coughing at day 14 in comparison with children with asthma (24%) and healthy controls (26%). CONCLUSION: Children with protracted bronchitis had the most severe ARI symptoms and higher percentage of respiratory morbidity at day 14 in comparison with children with asthma and healthy controls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".