Prospective associations between coping and health among youth with asthma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study evaluated whether primary and secondary coping would predict longitudinal asthma-related clinical outcomes, such as peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and self-reported school absenteeism, rescue inhaler use, and asthma-related physician contacts, in youth with asthma. The 62 youth (68% males) had an average age of 12.6 +/- 2.73 years and were primarily of European origin. Coping and asthma outcomes were obtained by youth self-report at baseline and over a 12-month follow-up period. Greater secondary coping at baseline was related to greater increases in PEFR and a greater likelihood of physician contact over the following year. Greater primary coping at baseline was related to greater likelihood of rescue inhaler use, school absenteeism, and physician contact over the following year. In contrast, asthma measures at baseline did not predict changes in coping over the following year. These patterns suggest that youth who engage in secondary coping accept and adapt to their asthma in ways that improve pulmonary function over time. Youth who engage in primary coping may be more likely to communicate asthma problems to others, and such communication perhaps leads to increases in behaviors meant to address these problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".