A Systematic Review of the Psychological Risk Factors Associated with Near Fatal Asthma or Fatal Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological factors such as anxiety, depressive disorders and/or personality disorders may predispose patients with asthma to near fatal asthma (NFA) or fatal asthma (FA). NFA is defined by an asthma exacerbation resulting in respiratory arrest requiring mechanical ventilation or a pCO(2) >or=45 mm Hg. Most studies have used the case-control study design. Several studies analyzing the effects of psychological factors on the risk of NFA or FA have shown conflicting results. We reviewed all of the literature found by the systematic search done of psychological factors on the risk NFA or FA. A MEDLINE search identified 423 articles between 1960 and March 2006. Seven case-controlled studies were identified following strict applications of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Due to the significant heterogeneity in the measurement of the psychological factors, a summary statistic was not calculated. The trial characteristics were tabulated and qualitative trends were observed to explain the heterogeneity in the results of the studies. Recommendations on future studies in the field are outlined in detail. Following a systematic assessment of all published studies, we cannot conclude that psychological factors increase the risk of NFA and FA.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".