A Descriptive Study of Women’s Perceptions of Their Asthma During Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the impact of asthma during pregnancy from the perspective of the pregnant woman. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A descriptive survey using the Internet for subject recruitment and data collection was conducted using an adaptation of the Cancer Survivors Survey Questionnaire. Women with asthma who were pregnant or who had recently given birth (n = 166) were the sample. Women responded from the United States, Canada, Europe, and Asia. Physical symptoms, emotional responses, and coping strategies to deal with the asthma were queried. RESULTS: Women reported a variety of respiratory difficulties including wheezing, coughing, and shortness of breath. They were concerned about avoiding triggers leading to acute asthma, the effect of the asthma medications on the fetus, and losing their jobs due to absenteeism. They wanted to know more about how to prevent an asthma attack and what effect their disease could have on their unborn infants. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Women need education and support to help them deal with asthma during pregnancy. Nursing can have an important role in teaching these women and helping them monitor their asthma status during pregnancy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".