MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2772443826 · doi:10.1183/13993003.01883-2017

Asthma control and action plans

2017· letter· en· W2772443826 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Kouri, Louis‐Philippe Boulet, Alan Kaplan, Samir Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalTD Bank GroupUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfusionAsthmaAction (physics)Affect (linguistics)Action planMedicineControl (management)Baseline (sea)Plan (archaeology)PsychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceHistoryCommunicationArtificial intelligenceInternal medicinePsychoanalysisManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arguments over semantics will not advance our common goal of improving AAP uptake We would like to thank I. Amirav and M.T. Newhouse for their correspondence in response to our recent paper, “An evidence-based, point-of-care tool to guide completion of asthma action plans in practice” [1]. They raise an important issue surrounding confusion between the concepts of poor baseline asthma control and acute changes in symptoms that merit activation of the “yellow zone” of the asthma action plan (AAP). Although, contrary to their contention, this discussion does not affect the objective or outcome of our analysis, which was to provide a practical, evidence-based guide to populating the AAP yellow zone, it merits further discussion.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0260.048
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory Journal→Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→