MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2098796191

Personalized action plans

2002· article· en· W2098796191 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan Kaplan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction planAsthmaAction (physics)MedicineGeneral partnershipFamily medicinePlan (archaeology)Medical emergencyBusinessManagementHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Family Physician Airways Group of Canada (FPAGC) has created, in partnership with the College of Family Physicians of Canada, an asthma action plan. The Canadian Asthma Consensus Guidelines Group (see www.asthmaguidelines.com/) clearly states that asthma education is key to managing asthma. Part of a good educational program is a personalized asthma action plan. This plan is available on a website at www.asthmaactionplan.com. A recent (November 2000) coroner’s report in Ontario stated the following. • Physicians should prepare, in consultation with their patients, a written “self-management action plan” that details appropriate use of medicine, lists potential environmental irritants, and outlines steps to be taken by patients if breathing problems arise. • The College of Family Physicians of Canada should develop a generic self-management action form to assist physicians and patients in preparing asthma action plans. Each action plan should be individualized; physicians should base management decisions on levels of asthma severity. Levels of severity on the planning form are colour-coded and based on the traffic-light system of green for go, yellow for caution, and red for stop. Severity is based on the usual parameters, including symptoms, β2-agonist use, and peak flow measurements. Maintenance medications are entered in the green section, and clinicians’ instructions are written in the other sections as appropriate. A common example of the first piece of advice in the yellow section is to double the maintenance dose of inhaled steroids. There is also a place to list known asthmatic triggers to reiterate the necessity of considering the environment. The FPAGC would like you to use this form in your practice. Completion of this action plan, and its distribution, will help improve the profession’s compliance with this coroner’s report. It is well known that asthma patients often underplay their illness. This planning form will be one step in their education about self-management. Please feel free to download the form and personalize it with your office or clinic name. Comments or suggestions

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2850.093

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→