Oral β<sub>2</sub>-Agonist Use by Preschool Children with Asthma in East and Central Harlem, New York
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".