MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056168977 · doi:10.1080/02770900500446989

Oral β<sub>2</sub>-Agonist Use by Preschool Children with Asthma in East and Central Harlem, New York

2006· article· en· W2056168977 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian Bonner, Thomas Matte, Mitchell Rubin, Joanne K. Fagan, Jennifer Ahern, David Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Asthma · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaAgonistPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although studies have documented underuse of controller medications and overuse of short-acting inhaled ss(2)-agonist among children with persistent asthma in disadvantaged communities, the persistence of oral ss(2)-agonist use in pediatric practice has not been studied since inhaled short-acting ss(2)-agonists became widespread. We describe medications used to treat asthma among children 3 to 5 years of age at 10 Head Start and other subsidized preschool centers in East and Central Harlem, New York City. We interviewed 149 parents/guardians of children who were identified as having probable asthma based on physician's diagnosis, persistent symptoms, hospitalization, and medication use. We classified 86 of the 149 children (58%) as having current persistent asthma. Only 15 of them (17%) were reported to have used controller medications at least 5 days/week in the last 4 weeks-only 2 of whom used inhaled corticosteroids. By contrast, 53 children (62%) used oral ss(2)-agonist in the last 4 weeks, often (72%) in conjunction with nebulized or inhaled short-acting ss(2)-agonist. Use of oral ss(2)-agonist was associated with more severe symptoms. This study documents the continued widespread use of oral ss(2)-agonist for treatment of children in a low-income community with high prevalence of asthma.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AsthmaSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207