MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999085784 · doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.5-4-419

Recovery after stroke

2005· article· en· W1999085784 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony G. Rudd

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaMedical prescriptionConfoundingDiseaseLogistic regressionPoisson regressionCorticosteroidIntensive care medicineAgonistPediatricsInternal medicinePharmacologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There is considerable controversy about the regular use of short- acting β-agonists for the treatment of asthma. Although case–control studies have suggested that excessive use of these drugs may worsen asthma control and increase the risk of fatal or near-fatal asthma, the controversy remains unresolved because of the confounding that exists among disease control, disease severity and the use of short-acting β-agonists. Whatever the cause-and-effect relation between the use of short-acting β-agonists and disease severity, we hypothesized that their excessive use, in conjunction with underuse of inhaled corticosteroids, would be a marker for poorly controlled asthma and excessive use of health care resources. Methods: To characterize the pattern of health services utilization among asthmatic patients taking various doses of inhaled β-agonists and corticosteroids in British Columbia, we linked the relevant health administrative databases. All patients between 5 and 50 years of age for whom a prescription for a short-acting β-agonist was filled in 1995 and whose prescription data were captured through the provincial drug plan were included in a retrospective analysis of prescriptions for asthma drugs, physician prescribing patterns and health services utilization. Patients9 use of asthma medication was classified as appropriate (low doses of short-acting β-agonist and high doses of inhaled corticosteroid) or inappropriate (high doses of short-acting β-agonist and low doses of inhaled corticosteroid), and the 2 resulting groups were compared, by means of logistic, Poisson and gamma regression, for differences in prescribing patterns, physician visits and use of hospital resources. Results: A total of 23 986 patients were identified as having filled a prescription for a short-acting β-agonist (for inhalation) in 1995. Of these, 3069 (12.8%) filled prescriptions for 9 or more canisters of β-agonist, and of this group of high-dose β-agonist users, 763 (24.9%) used no more than 100 μg/day of inhaled beclomethasone. On average, those with inappropriate use of β-agonists visited significantly more physicians for their prescriptions (1.8 v. 1.4), and each of these physicians on average wrote significantly more prescriptions for asthma medications per patient than the physicians who prescribed to appropriate users (5.2 v. 2.5 prescriptions). Patients with inappropriate use were more likely to be admitted to hospital (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25–2.26), were admitted to hospital more frequently (adjusted RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.41–2.32) and were more likely to require emergency admission (adjusted RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.35–2.77). Interpretation: Despite the widespread distribution of guidelines for asthma pharmacotherapy, inappropriate use of asthma medications persists (specifically excessive use of inhaled short-acting β-agonists combined with underuse of inhaled corticosteroids). Not only are patients who use medication inappropriately at higher risk for fatal or near-fatal asthma attacks, but, as shown in this study, they use significantly more health care resources than patients with appropriate medication use.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.008

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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.633
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical MedicineSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207