Measuring productivity loss days in asthma patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In assessments of the cost of illness, productivity losses potentially constitute a large proportion. The present study objective was to develop a method to measure restricted days and to quantify total productivity loss days (PLDs) in adult asthma patients. Patient and disease characteristics, occupation, annual wage, work absences, restricted days, level of functioning on restricted days, and travel and waiting time were collected over 6 months in 892 adult asthma outpatients residing in southern Ontario. Annual PLDs varied from 12 in employed persons to 49 in disability pensioners. Homemakers reported 22 PLDs per year. Restricted days accounted for most PLDs and functional level during restricted days varied from 55% to 81%. Annual PLDs increased with increasing disease severity. Employed persons experienced the fewest PLDs and functioned at the highest level during restricted days, but also demonstrated a milder disease compared with other groups. Most productivity loss in asthma patients resulted from numerous restricted days, a category of PLD that is often ignored in economic assessments. The presentation of PLD results disaggregated by category of time loss and wage rate may provide valuable information to employers and health policy makers and may facilitate the application of multiple approaches to the calculation of indirect costs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".