MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135147363 · doi:10.1186/s13223-015-0075-z

CSACI position statement: systemic effect of inhaled corticosteroids on adrenal suppression in the management of pediatric asthma

2015· article· en· W2135147363 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Karine Issa-El-Khoury, Harold Kim, Edmond S. Chan, Tim Vander Leek, Francisco Noya

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaInhaled corticosteroidsCorticosteroidAllergyMorningDiseasePediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways that affects a growing number of children and adolescents. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay of treatment in persistent asthma, with a stepwise approach to increasing doses of ICS depending on asthma severity and control. ICS have known local and systemic side effects, of which adrenal suppression is still under-recognized. The latter is associated with chronic exposure and higher doses, although it has rarely been reported in children receiving low doses for a short period of time. The Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (CSACI) therefore recommends that physicians screen for adrenal suppression in children receiving high doses for more than 6 months and to consider screening those on medium dose if the risk is deemed higher by factors that increase an individual's systemic corticosteroid exposure. Morning serum cortisol level can be used as a screening tool and abnormal results or normal results with a high index of suspicion should be confirmed with low-dose ACTH stimulation tests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations39
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergy Asthma and Clinical ImmunologySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207