Prospective Multicenter Study of Acute Asthma in Younger Versus Older Adults Presenting to the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe acute asthma in younger versus older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. Asthmatic adults were divided into three age groups: 18 to 34, 35 to 54, and 55 and older. The analysis was restricted to never smokers and smokers with fewer than 10 pack-years. SETTING: ED. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand sixty-four patients aged 18 and older with a physician diagnosis of asthma. MEASUREMENTS: Medications and peak expiratory flow. RESULTS: There were 1,158 (56%) subjects aged 18 to 34; 777 (37%) aged 35 to 54; and 129 (6%) aged 55 and older. Older patients were most likely to have a primary care provider (65%, 74%, and 91%, respectively; P<.001); most were not taking inhaled corticosteroids (39%, 55%, and 48%, respectively; P<.001). Older patients reported fewer ED visits for asthma (2, 2, and 1, respectively; P=.001) but were more likely to report asthma hospitalization (24%, 31%, and 37%, respectively; P<.001). All groups had severe exacerbations (initial percentage predicted peak flow: 47, 47, and 47, respectively; P=.50), but older patients were least likely to report severe symptoms (72%, 79%, and 67%, respectively; P=.001). Older patients did not respond as well to bronchodilators, even after controlling for other demographic factors, markers of asthma severity, and ED management (change between initial and final peak expiratory flow, using subjects aged 18 to 34 as reference: aged 35-54, beta=-0.7 (95% CI=-9.4-8.0); aged > or = 55, beta=-18.4 (-31.9 to -4.9)). The smaller change in peak expiratory flow contributed most to older patients' greater likelihood of hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Older asthma patients were less responsive to emergency bronchodilation. This may reflect chronic undertreatment with inhaled corticosteroids.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".