Inhaled beta2-agonists for non-specific chronic cough in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology of so called 'cough variant asthma' has not received a great deal of research interest and opinion lies divided as to whether it is really asthma or not. The proponents of cough variant asthma suggest a therapeutic trial of medications usually used to treat asthma OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of inhaled ss2 agonists in non-specific chronic cough in children over the age of 2 years. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Airways Group database (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCRT) were searched. Additional searching included hand searching of medical journals through the Cochrane Collaboration, references, references of references listed in primary sources and personal communication with authors. In addition "Grey literature" including theses, internal reports, non-peer reviewed journals were sought. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised (randomised and quasi-randomised) controlled clinical trials in which inhaled ss2 agonists were given for chronic cough in children over 2 years of age were included. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data for trials of salbutamol versus placebo were extracted by both reviewers and entered into the Cochrane Collaboration software program Review Manager, version 4.2 MAIN RESULTS: In children presenting with isolated chronic cough there was no significant difference between salbutamol treated group and placebo group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Salbutamol was no different from placebo in reducing the frequency of cough measured objectively or scored subjectively.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".