Verifying a questionnaire diagnosis of asthma in children using health claims data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood asthma prevalence is widely measured by parental proxy report of physician-diagnosed asthma in questionnaires. Our objective was to validate this measure in a North American population. METHODS: The 2884 study participants were a subsample of 5619 school children aged 5 to 9 years from 231 schools participating in the Toronto Child Health Evaluation Questionnaire study in 2006. We compared agreement between "questionnaire diagnosis" and a previously validated "health claims data diagnosis". Sensitivity, specificity and kappa were calculated for the questionnaire diagnosis using the health claims diagnosis as the reference standard. RESULTS: Prevalence of asthma was 15.7% by questionnaire and 21.4% by health claims data. Questionnaire diagnosis was insensitive (59.0%) but specific (95.9%) for asthma. When children with asthma-related symptoms were excluded, the sensitivity increased (83.6%), and specificity remained high (93.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that parental report of asthma by questionnaire has low sensitivity but high specificity as an asthma prevalence measure. In addition, children with "asthma-related symptoms" may represent a large fraction of under-diagnosed asthma and they should be excluded from the inception cohort for risk factor studies.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it