A peer led asthma education programme in adolescents was more effective than no programme for improving quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(2001) BMJ 322, 583. Shah S, Peat JK, Mazurski EJ, et al. . Effect of peer led programme for asthma education in adolescents: cluster randomised controlled trial. . Mar 10; . : . –5. . [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: In adolescents with asthma, is a peer led asthma education programme more effective than no programme for improving quality of life (QoL)? Randomised (allocation concealed*), blinded {data analyst}†,* controlled trial with 3 months follow up. 6 high schools in Tamworth, New South Wales, Australia. 272 adolescents who were in grades 7 and 10, were present on the test day, and reported recent wheeze were included in the study. 251 adolescents (92%; mean age 14 y, 55% girls) completed follow up. 3 schools (124 students) were cluster randomised to implement the adolescent peer led asthma education (Triple A) programme. The Triple A programme involved a 3 step approach to peer led education. In step 1, student volunteers in grade 11 were trained as leaders during a 6 hour workshop to … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft.stitle%253DBMJ%26rft.issn%253D0007-1447%26rft.aulast%253DShah%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%26rft.volume%253D322%26rft.issue%253D7286%26rft.spage%253D583%26rft.epage%253D583%26rft.atitle%253DEffect%2Bof%2Bpeer%2Bled%2Bprogramme%2Bfor%2Basthma%2Beducation%2Bin%2Badolescents%253A%2Bcluster%2Brandomised%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.322.7286.583%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11238152%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7286/583&atom=%2Febmed%2F6%2F5%2F148.atom
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".