MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526215128 · doi:10.1080/17476348.2016.1242415

Addressing the misdiagnosis of asthma in adults: where does it go wrong?

2016· article· en· W2526215128 on OpenAlexaff
Jenna MacNeil, Robyn Loves, Shawn D. Aaron

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Respiratory Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaOverdiagnosisWheezeSpirometryIntensive care medicinePediatricsPulmonologistsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Asthma is diagnosed based on patients' respiratory symptoms of wheeze, cough, chest tightness and/or dyspnea together with physiologic evidence of variable and reversible expiratory airflow limitation. A high prevalence of overdiagnosis, underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of adult asthma has been reported in the literature. Areas covered: Misdiagnosis of asthma in adults can occur in the community due to physicians' failure to confirm airflow limitation using spirometry, the relatively poor sensitivity of spirometry to absolutely rule in asthma, the complexity of multiple asthma phenotypes and endotypes, and the inherent day to day variability of asthma symptoms and airflow limitation. Consequences of asthma misdiagnosis to the patient and to the healthcare system include increased medication costs, increased potential side effects related to unnecessary use of medications and lost opportunities to diagnose the true cause of patients' respiratory symptoms. Expert commentary: Here we provide a review of the problem of misdiagnosis of adult asthma and suggestions for how to decrease the risk of misdiagnosis.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0170.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Respiratory MedicineSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207