Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with asthma must often make management decisions without the support of asthma care providers. A toll-free asthma helpline is one solution for an easily accessible, community-based service to support individuals with management dilemmas. The study evaluated a toll-free asthma helpline staffed by Certified Asthma Educators (CAEs). METHODS: Helpline CAEs assessed and responded to callers' needs. Data collection occurred during the initial helpline call and a follow-up call 12-16 weeks later. 1,400 of 1,828 (76.6%) eligible callers randomly selected for participation completed the study. RESULTS: Most callers (79%) had poorly controlled asthma during their initial call. CAEs often advised callers (> 75%) to return to their asthma provider for assistance as a result of uncontrolled asthma, medication concerns, a questionable diagnosis, or the need for an action plan. Most participants (71%) returned to their provider and received medication changes (72%). CONCLUSION: The helpline is an important service to individuals affected by asthma (typically uncontrolled) through educating and coaching callers to discuss questions and concerns with their asthma providers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.008 | 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".