Parent‐reported symptoms may not be adequate to define asthma control in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Asthma guidelines have suggested that treatment decisions should be guided by indices of asthma control and not only by disease severity. In adults, symptom‐based asthma control parameters have been shown to predict exacerbations and health care services use (HSU). We hypothesize that defining asthma control using parent‐reported symptoms alone is not adequate in children. Materials and Methods Cross‐sectional data from the population‐based asthma in Canada study were reanalyzed. Random‐digit dialing was used to produce the final sample, consisting of 1,001 asthmatics: 801 adults (aged 16+) and 200 children (aged 4–15) participating by parental proxy. Weighted frequencies of Canadian guideline defined asthma control parameters, perceived asthma control, HSU and medication use were calculated separately for adults and children. Stratified analyses compared HSU in controlled versus uncontrolled asthmatics. Results Over 90% of parents of asthmatic children believed their child's asthma to be controlled. Only 45% were actually controlled as defined by guideline parameters. Among controlled asthmatics, children reported higher HSU (32% reported 2+ health care encounters versus 17% of adults, P < 0.001). Irrespective of control and despite similar use of controller therapy, children reported a higher number of health care encounters than adults (any emergency department visits 37% vs. 24%, P = 0.00003; unscheduled doctor visits 59% vs. 36%, P < 0.00001). While reporting higher HSU, asthmatic children had less frequent episodes of excessive daytime symptoms than adults (29% vs. 49%, respectively, P < 0.0001). Discussion Current symptom‐based asthma control parameters reported by parental proxy are likely poor predictors of asthma HSU and may not provide adequate asthma control estimates in children. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2007; 42:1117–1124. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".