MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2199776000 · doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207199

Asthma in Latin America

2015· review· en· W2199776000 on OpenAlexaff
Erick Forno, Mudita Gogna, Alfonso Cepeda, Anahí Yáñez, Dirceu Solé, Philip J. Cooper, Lydiana Ávila, Manuel Soto-Quirós, José A. Castro‐Rodríguez, Juan C. Celedón

Bibliographic record

VenueThorax · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersWellcome TrustEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteHeinz Endowments
KeywordsLatin AmericansMedicineAsthmaEnvironmental healthPublic healthObesityPsychological interventionPsychosocialImmunologyPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consistent with the diversity of Latin America, there is profound variability in asthma burden among and within countries in this region. Regional variation in asthma prevalence is likely multifactorial and due to genetics, perinatal exposures, diet, obesity, tobacco use, indoor and outdoor pollutants, psychosocial stress and microbial or parasitic infections. Similarly, non-uniform progress in asthma management leads to regional variability in disease morbidity. Future studies of distinct asthma phenotypes should follow-up well-characterised Latin American subgroups and examine risk factors that are unique or common in Latin America (eg, stress and violence, parasitic infections and use of biomass fuels for cooking). Because most Latin American countries share the same barriers to asthma management, concerted and multifaceted public health and research efforts are needed, including approaches to curtail tobacco use, campaigns to improve asthma treatment, broadening access to care and clinical trials of non-pharmacological interventions (eg, replacing biomass fuels with gas or electric stoves).

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)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations90
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThoraxSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207