MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165901773 · doi:10.1586/1744666x.2013.836450

Characterizing wheeze phenotypes to identify endotypes of childhood asthma, and the implications for future management

2013· review· en· W2165901773 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Belgrave, Adnan Čustović, Angela Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Clinical Immunology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsWheezeMedicineAsthmaEndotypeNatural historyDiseaseEpidemiologyIntensive care medicineImmunologyPediatricsPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is now a commonly held view that asthma is not a single disease, but rather a set of heterogeneous diseases sharing common symptoms. One of the major challenges in treating asthma is understanding these different asthma phenotypes and their underlying biological mechanisms. This review gives an epidemiological perspective of our current understanding of the different phenotypes that develop from birth to childhood that come under the umbrella term 'asthma'. The review focuses mainly on publications from longitudinal birth cohort studies where the natural history of asthma symptoms is observed over time in the whole population. Identifying distinct pathophysiological mechanisms for these different phenotypes will potentially elucidate different asthma endotypes, ultimately leading to more effective treatment and management strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.403 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Clinical ImmunologySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207