Delivery of 100%, 40%, and blow-by humidity did not differ for change in croup scores in children with moderate croup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scolnik D, Coates AL, Stephens D, et al. Controlled delivery of high vs low humidity vs mist therapy for croup in emergency departments: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006;295:1274–80. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In children presenting to the emergency department (ED) with moderate croup, what is the relative effectiveness of 100% humidity with optimally sized water particles, 40% humidity, and humidity delivered by the blow-by technique? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ Respirology ★★★★★★☆ Emergency medicine ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: {concealed}*.† ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: blinded (healthcare providers, data collectors, and {data analysts}*).† ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: 30 and 60 minutes. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: ED at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 140 children 3 months to 10 years of age (mean age 25 mo, 69% boys) who presented with croup lasting ⩽1 week and had Westley croup scores ⩾2 out of 17 after a 30 minute rest period. Exclusion criteria were need for immediate nebulised epinephrine or intubation, potential alternative cause of stridor, history of intubation, chronic systemic or pulmonary disease other than asthma, use of … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.issn%253D0002-9955%26rft.aulast%253DScolnik%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%26rft.volume%253D295%26rft.issue%253D11%26rft.spage%253D1274%26rft.epage%253D1280%26rft.atitle%253DControlled%2BDelivery%2Bof%2BHigh%2Bvs%2BLow%2BHumidity%2Bvs%2BMist%2BTherapy%2Bfor%2BCroup%2Bin%2BEmergency%2BDepartments%253A%2BA%2BRandomized%2BControlled%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.295.11.1274%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16537737%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/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.295.11.1274&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16537737&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F5%2F142.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000235972600025&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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 | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".