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 OpenAlex
Julie Polisena, Susanna Tam, Abhay Lodha, Audrey Laporte, Peter C. Coyte, Wendy J. Ungar

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.026
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