Assessment of a Medication-Based Asthma Index for Population Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asthma management guidelines recommend the use of preventive medications in sufficient amounts to control asthma symptoms. The validity of a medication use index as a proxy for asthma severity has not been established. We recruited 1,279 Ontario adults with asthma or parents of children with asthma from a community-based surveillance program in 1995-96. Participants completed a telephone questionnaire at baseline, 3 and 6 mo. The questionnaire gathered information about asthma medication use, health care utilization, and symptoms. Asthma was classified as mild in 28%, moderate in 49%, or severe in 23% of patients based on the amount and types of medication used. There were significant differences among groups in health resource use such that adults with higher medication use visited primary care physicians and specialists more frequently, had pulmonary functions tests more frequently, and were admitted to hospital more frequently. The findings among children were similar. There were weak positive correlations between medication use and symptom frequency in adults and children. We conclude that a medication use index may be useful in population-based research where clinical asthma severity data are lacking. Such an index is distinct from but is related to disease control.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".