MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337352338

Asthma: the great imitator in foreign body aspiration?

2012· article· en· W2337352338 on OpenAlex
Joe Saliba, Tamara Mijović, Sam J. Daniel, Lily H. P. Nguyen, John J. Manoukian

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicForeign Body Medical Cases
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChokingForeign body aspirationBronchoscopyForeign bodyAsthmaAirwayEmergency departmentPresentation (obstetrics)Retrospective cohort studySurgeryInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of underlying lower airway inflammatory conditions in children who underwent rigid bronchoscopy (RB) for a suspected foreign body aspiration (FBA) in the tracheobronchial tree and to identify the characteristics of patients who could benefit from a trial of antiasthma treatment prior to undergoing a diagnostic bronchoscopy. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Children with suspected FBA in the tracheobronchial tree who underwent RB at the Montreal Children's Hospital (2001-2009). METHODS: Patient characteristics such as clinical, radiologic, and bronchoscopic findings on presentation, as well as prior use of inhaled bronchodilators or corticosteroids, were analyzed. A p value < .05 was considered significant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of inhaled bronchodilators or corticosteroids, signs, symptoms, and radiologic and bronchoscopic findings on presentation. RESULTS: Fifty-five children underwent an RB for suspected FBA. Foreign bodies were found in 36 subjects. Asthmatics were significantly more likely to have a negative bronchoscopy than nonasthmatics (80.0% vs 30.0%, p < .05). Otherwise, clinical and radiologic findings were not significantly different in these two groups. The median time between the suspected choking event and the first otolaryngology evaluation was 14 days in asthmatics (range 5 hours-90 days), whereas it was 16 hours in nonasthmatics (range 0.5 hours-120 days). CONCLUSION: A conservative approach cannot be justified in suspected asthmatic children with possible FBA, in whom the indications for diagnostic bronchoscopy must be tailored to each patient to ensure a timely diagnosis.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.219 · 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