MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051609830 · doi:10.1517/14656566.6.2.255

Current pharmacological options in the treatment of croup

2005· review· en· W2051609830 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian H. Rowe, Robin J Arent, Terry P. Klassen

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOtolaryngology and Infectious Diseases
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityChild, Adolescent and Family Mental HealthUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicineCroupHelioxIntensive care medicineStridorAsthmaRespiratory distressQuality of life (healthcare)PediatricsAnesthesiaAirwayInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Croup is one of the most common respiratory illnesses seen in the acute paediatric setting. It can be a cause of acute stridor and/or respiratory distress in young children. Research has shown that therapy aimed at reducing symptoms and inflammation can reduce complications such as the need for intubation, hospitalisation and improve quality of life for parents and children. Corticosteroids are the primary treatment option that will accomplish both goals and can be used in out-patient and in-patient settings. Corticosteroids may be given orally, parenterally or in wet nebulised form; however, oral administration is the preferred route. Wet nebulised adrenaline (racaemic or l-adrenaline) is also an effective treatment for more severe cases of croup. Recent studies have shown that mist/humidified air provides no additional symptom improvement, nor does it alter the overall cause of the disease process. Currently, there is insufficient randomised controlled trial evidence to support the role of heliox in the short-term treatment of croup.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on PharmacotherapySame topicOtolaryngology and Infectious DiseasesFrench-language works237,207