Comparison of Canadian Versus American Emergency Department Visits for Acute Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute asthma is a common emergency department (ED) presentation in both Canada and the United States. OBJECTIVE: To compare ED asthma management and outcomes between Canada and the United States. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 69 American and eight Canadian EDs was conducted. Patients aged two to 54 years who presented with acute asthma underwent a structured ED interview and telephone follow-up two weeks later. RESULTS: A total of 3031 patients were enrolled. Canadian patients were more likely to be white (89% versus 22%; P<0.001), have health insurance (100% versus 69%; P<0.001) and identify a primary care provider (89% versus 64%; P<0.001) than American patients. In addition, Canadian patients were more likely to be using inhaled corticosteroids (63% versus 44%; P<0.001) and had higher initial peak expiratory flow (61% versus 48%; P<0.001). In the ED, Canadians received fewer beta-agonist (one versus two; P<0.001) and more anticholinergic (two versus one; P<0.001) treatments in the first hour; use of systemic corticosteroids was similar (60% versus 68%; P=0.13). Canadians were less likely to be hospitalized (11% versus 21%; P=0.02). Corticosteroids were prescribed similarly at discharge (60% versus 69%; P=0.13); however, Canadians were discharged more commonly on inhaled corticosteroids (63% versus 11%; P<0.001) and relapses were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian patients with acute asthma have fewer barriers to primary care and are more likely to be on preventive medications, both before the ED visit and following discharge. Admissions rates are higher in the United States; however, relapse after discharge is similar between countries. These findings highlight the influences of preventive practices and heath care systems on ED visits for asthma.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".