MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W193886815 · doi:10.1155/2000/797306

Difficult Asthma: Consider All of the Possibilities

2000· article· en· W193886815 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Cicutto, Kenneth R. Chapman, Dean Chamberlain, Gregory P. Downey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory and Cough-Related Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaSpirometryBronchoscopyMucoepidermoid carcinomaEmergency departmentComputed tomographyQuality of life (healthcare)Intensive care medicineRadiologyInternal medicineCarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asthma is a common respiratory disease that can often be managed successfully. However, there are patients that do not respond to the maximum doses of standard therapy and subsequently have a reduced quality of life. Many factors can contribute to a failure to respond to treatment, and a comprehensive approach is important when assessing and evaluating these patients. This report describes a patient referred for 'difficult to control asthma' who had multiple emergency department visits and hospitalizations. In addition to a history of wheezing, spirometry showed impaired flow and vital capacity was reduced. Further investigation showed a normal total lung capacity, and a computed tomography scan revealed main bronchus blockage by a tumour, which was confirmed by bronchoscopy. This led to a surgical resection of a mucoepidermoid carcinoma. This case highlights the need to consider all possibilities during the evaluation of patients with difficult 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchFrench-language works237,207