<i>The Asthma Quiz for Kidz</i>: A Validated Tool to Appreciate the Level of Asthma Control in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to bridge the large gap between optimal and observed asthma control among Canadian children. OBJECTIVES: To adapt the criteria of asthma control proposed in the 1999 Asthma Consensus Statement for children and validate the proposed cut-offs in children with asthma. METHODS: Six clinical criteria of asthma control were phrased as questions and response options, and pretested for clarity. A cross-sectional study was conducted in children one to 17 years of age presenting to the hospital's asthma clinics. Children nine years of age or older and their parents were asked to complete The Asthma Quiz for Kidz separately, and then together, before the medical visit. Parents of younger children completed the questionnaire with their child. Physicians were not informed of the results of the quiz. RESULTS: The mean age of the 343 participants was 8.0+/-4.4 (SD) years with a mean baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 96+/-15% of predicted values. Asthma severity was rated as mild (67%), moderate (29%) or severe (4%). Overall, 57% of subjects endorsed at least two of the six criteria of poor control. The median (interquartile range) Asthma Quiz score was significantly higher when the physician's assessment of asthma control was poor than when the physician's assessment of asthma control was good (3 [1, 5] versus 1 [0, 2], P<0.001), but it did not correlate with the spirometry. A score of at least 2 out of 6 had 73% sensitivity and 59% specificity for identifying poor control. INTERPRETATION: The Asthma Quiz score provides complementary information to, but does not replace, lung function testing. A score of 2 or more out of 6 suggests poor asthma control and should prompt patients to consult their physician for reassessment.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".