How pediatricians in Spain manage the first acute wheezing episode in an atopic infant. Results from the TRAP study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the treatment of asthma has been addressed in several guidelines, the management of the first acute wheezing episode in infants has not often been evaluated. We surveyed practicing pediatricians in Spain about the treatment they would provide in a simulated case. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A random sample of 3000 pediatricians and physicians who normally treated children was surveyed. The questionnaire inquired about how they would treat a first mild-to-moderate wheezing attack in a 5-month-old boy with a personal and family history of allergy. Pediatricians were asked about their professional background. RESULTS: A total of 2347 questionnaires were returned with useful data (78.2%). Most (90.4%) of the pediatricians would use a short-acting beta2 agonist (SABA) via a metered-dose inhaler with a spacer and a face mask or nebulizer. However, only 34.5% chose a SABA alone: 31.3% added an oral steroid and 27.6% added an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). The factors associated with the use of ICS in the acute attack were: (1) lack of specific training in pediatrics (OR 1.45; 1.12-1.85) and (2) primary care health center setting (OR 1.31; 1.01-1.69) or rural setting (OR 1.28; 1.01-1.66). Forty-four percent did not recommend any follow-up treatment while 20.7% prescribed ICS as maintenance therapy. The factors related to this decision were the same as those described above. CONCLUSIONS: The management of a first wheezing episode seems to meet published guidelines among Spanish pediatricians with formal training in pediatrics and in those who work in a hospital setting or in urban areas.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".