Inhaled corticosteroids in childhood asthma: Income differences in use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asthma hospitalization rates in children increase with decreasing level of household income. This research was undertaken to determine whether use of inhaled corticosteroid drugs, which can prevent asthma hospitalizations, followed a similar socioeconomic gradient in children with asthma. We performed a cross-sectional study of association, using population-based prescription and healthcare data sources. Our subjects were 16,862 Manitoba children, aged 5-15 years, with prescriptions for asthma drugs during January 1995-March 1996. Our measures were adjusted for asthma severity, physician specialty, and proportion of children with an inhaled corticosteroid prescription by neighborhood income. Forty-five percent of children treated for asthma had at least one inhaled corticosteroid prescription during January 1995-March 1996. The proportion of children with inhaled corticosteroid prescriptions decreased with successive decreases in neighborhood income. The socioeconomic gradient in the likelihood of an inhaled corticosteroid prescription was most evident among children with mild-moderate asthma who were not in the care of an asthma specialist. In conclusion, a socioeconomic gradient in the use of inhaled corticosteroids prescriptions can be found among children with universal access to healthcare and drug insurance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".