MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2606447703 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxx015

Comment on the CTS 2015 guidelines for asthma in preschoolers

2017· article· en· W2606447703 on OpenAlexaffabout
Israel Amirav, Michael T. Newhouse

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsthmaMedicinePediatricsPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) and the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) should be applauded for developing their position paper for ‘Diagnosis and Management of Asthma in Preschoolers’ (1,2). We would, however, like to draw attention to the term ‘frequent symptoms’, mentioned in this document for two domains—diagnosis and control of asthma and its relation to upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) episodes which are very common in preschoolers. Frequent symptoms in both domains of the CTS/CPS paper are defined as ‘at least 8 days a month of symptoms’. Unfortunately, no evidence supports that definition. Regarding the diagnosis domain, we would like to draw attention to the original GINA (Global Initiative for Asthma) approach (3). In this document, a probability-based approach is suggested, based on the pattern of symptoms during and between viral respiratory infections. Using this approach (Box 6-1 in GINA, see Figure 1), symptoms during an URTI that last <10 days, recurring less than four times a year and with no symptoms between episodes, are considered low probability of asthma (even in the presence of a positive response to ‘asthma’ treatment).

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0480.060
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.008

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→