MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060712872 · doi:10.1080/02770900701495728

An Economic Evaluation of Asthma Action Plans for Children with Asthma

2007· article· en· W2060712872 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Julie Polisena, Susanna Tam, Abhay Lodha, Audrey Laporte, Peter C. Coyte, Wendy J. Ungar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Asthma · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenCanadian Foundation for Healthcare ImprovementCanadian Institutes of Health Research
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaRandomized controlled trialAction planHealth careIndirect costsPhysical therapyEnvironmental healthFamily medicinePediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The costs and effectiveness of asthma action plans for children were evaluated in a cross-sectional economic analysis. Direct health care and indirect costs, nights with symptoms, and asthma attacks were measured in 879 Ontario children with asthma. From a societal perspective, the total annual costs of the asthma action plan and the control groups were CDN$6,948 and CDN$6,140 per patient, respectively. Health outcomes were similar. The difference in cost was attributable to greater medication and health services use in the intervention group. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to measure potential improvements in control of asthma using asthma action plans.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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