MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2762502256 · doi:10.1093/pch/20.5.e42a

25: Determinants of Oral Corticosteroid Responsiveness in Wheezing Asthmatic Youth (Doorway)

2015· article· en· W2762502256 on OpenAlexaff
Francine M. Ducharme, Roger Zemek, Bhupendrasinh F Chauhan, Jocelyn Gravel, Dominic Chalut, Naveen Poonai, Sophie Laberge, Caroline Quach, Maja Krajinović, Lucie Blondeau, Chantal Guímont, Catherine Lemière, MC Guertin

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaEmergency departmentPediatricsExhaled nitric oxideExacerbationPrednisoneSalbutamolBronchodilatorProspective cohort studyCorticosteroidCohortIpratropium bromideInternal medicineSpirometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although oral corticosteroids (OCS) are the cornerstone of acute asthma management in the emergency department (ED), recent trials have questioned the efficacy of OCS in preschool-aged children presenting with viral-induced wheezing episodes. The aim of the study was to determine the magnitude, and potential determinants, of OCS responsiveness in children presenting to the ED with moderate or severe asthma. We conducted a prospective multicentre cohort study of children aged 1–17 years presenting to the ED with an acute moderate or severe asthma exacerbation, defined as a Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) score of 4–7 or 8–12, respectively. All children received standardized treatment with prednisone or equivalent (2 mg/kg in four sites and 1 mg/kg in one site, maximum: 50 mg) and severity-specific co-interventions (salbutamol with/without ipratropium bromide) as per national guidelines. Key determinants included age, sex, baseline PRAM, site, viral aetiology (polymerase chain reaction [PCR] on nasopharyngeal swabs), tobacco exposure (salivary cotinine) and OCS dose. The primary efficacy endpoint was ED management failure (i.e., hospital admission, prolonged (≥8 hours) ED stay, or a return visit within 72 hours with an admission or prolonged stay). Of the 973 participants, most were preschoolers (75.1%), males (66.3%) and presented with a moderate (72.5%) exacerbation. Children received 2 mg/kg (82.2%) or 1 (17.8%) mg/kg of prednisone or equivalent: 165 (17.1%) experienced ED management failure; 579 (62.1%) had a PCR-confirmed viral infection (45% rhinoviruses; 17.3% respiratory syncythial virus; 9.7% metapneumovirus); 53 (5.3%) had elevated salivary cotinine (≥4 ng/mL); and 260 (26.8%) had suspected (1≤ cotinine <4 ng/mL) or reported environmental tobacco smoke exposure. After adjusting for co-variables, ED management failure was significantly associated with baseline PRAM (OR 1.49 [95% CI 1.34 to1.65], for each additional PRAM point), concurrent pneumonia (OR 4.56 [2.73 to 7.61]) and sites. The two sites with protocolized asthma management initiated by nurses were associated with 50% lower admission rates. Of note, age, sex, PCR-confirmed viral infection, saliva cotinine, and dose/kg of OCS were not significantly associated with the magnitude of response. Preschool age and viral triggers do not increase the risk of ED management failure or poor response to OCS in children. However, increasing severity of the exacerbation, concurrent pneumonia, and sites were significantly associated with ED management failure. In sites with protocolized asthma management, rapid administration of OCS (irrespective of dose) decreased by half the risk of ED treatment failures.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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