Measuring Asthma Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daily symptom, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), and medication diaries are often used in clinical trials of treatments for asthma on the assumption that they provide a better estimate of clinical status than does a questionnaire completed in the clinic. We conducted a study with the aim of comparing the measurement properties of the clinic-completed Asthma Control Questionnaire with those of the Asthma Control Diary. The diary is composed of questions and response options almost identical to those of the questionnaire, but uses PEFR instead of FEV(1) as the measure of airway caliber. In an observational study, 50 adults with symptomatic asthma attended a McMaster University asthma clinic at 0, 1, 5, and 9 wk to complete the Asthma Control Questionnaire and other measures of asthma status. For 1 wk before each follow-up visit, patients completed the Asthma Control Diary every morning and evening. Concordance between the questionnaire and diary was high (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.87). Both reliability (ICC: questionnaire = 0.90; diary = 0.86) and responsiveness (responsiveness index: questionnaire = 1.06; diary = 0.90; p = 0.005) were better with the questionnaire than with the diary. Correlations between the two instruments and other measures of clinical asthma status were similar and close to a priori predictions. Both the Asthma Control Questionnaire and the Asthma Control Diary are valid instruments for measuring asthma control, but the questionnaire has slightly better discriminative and evaluative measurement properties than does the diary.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".