Rationale and Design of the Multiethnic Pharmacogenomics in Childhood Asthma Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: International collaboration is needed to enable large-scale pharmacogenomics studies in childhood asthma. Here, we describe the design of the Pharmacogenomics in Childhood Asthma (PiCA) consortium. MATERIALS & METHODS: Investigators of each study participating in PiCA provided data on the study characteristics by answering an online questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies, including 14,227 children/young persons (58% male), from 12 different countries are currently enrolled in the PiCA consortium. Fifty six percent of the patients are Caucasians. In total, 7619 were inhaled corticosteroid users. Among patients from 13 studies with available data on asthma exacerbations, a third reported exacerbations despite inhaled corticosteroid use. In the future pharmacogenomics studies within the consortium, the pharmacogenomics analyses will be performed separately in each center and the results will be meta-analyzed. CONCLUSION: PiCA is a valuable platform to perform pharmacogenetics studies within a multiethnic pediatric asthma population.
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 | 0.152 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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.
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".