MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013124002 · doi:10.1097/mop.0b013e328332537d

Recent innovations to improve asthma outcomes in vulnerable children

2009· review· en· W2013124002 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Li, Astrid Guttmann

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pediatrics · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionOutreachAsthmaSocioeconomic statusEthnic groupHealth equityHealth careFamily medicineEnvironmental healthNursingPublic healthPopulationEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite overall improvements in asthma care through an increasing evidence base, disparities in outcomes of children of ethnic minorities and low socioeconomic status are well documented across healthcare systems. New interventions to reduce gaps in outcomes among these children are continually being evaluated. This article reviews the most relevant and influential recent studies. RECENT FINDINGS: A number of interventions aimed at vulnerable children with asthma have been successful. Most of these include a component of education and self-management. There is some evidence that culturally competent care produces improved outcomes, whereas stronger evidence exists for multifaceted programs and community health workers providing home visits for education and environmental allergen reduction. Targeting children and families through school-based programs may be an effective outreach strategy. Use of novel technologies such as educational messages on MP3 players shows promise in reaching at-risk adolescents. SUMMARY: There are promising strategies proven to significantly decrease disparities in asthma among vulnerable children. Further research must be performed to elucidate the interventions that produce the greatest impact on asthma-related outcomes while being feasible, sustainable, and cost-effective.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PediatricsSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207