MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2773136279 · doi:10.1183/13993003.02433-2016

Association of wheeze with lung function decline in children with sickle cell disease

2017· letter· en· W2773136279 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Glenda N. Bendiak, Dimas Mateos‐Corral, Anwar Sallam, Eshetu G. Atenafu, Melanie Kirby, Isaac Odame, P Bikangaga, Padmaja Subbarao, Hartmut Grasemann

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkHospital for Sick ChildrenIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreAlberta Children's Hospital
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsWheezeMedicineAsthmaAtopyAcute chest syndromePediatricsExhaled nitric oxideCohortDiseaseLung functionPulmonary function testingAllergySpirometryInternal medicineLungImmunologySickle cell anemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging evidence suggests that wheezing in children with sickle cell disease (SCD) is associated with higher rates of acute chest syndrome (ACS) and vaso-occlusive crises, independent of a diagnosis of asthma [1, 2]. We investigated the relationships of longitudinal pulmonary function decline with wheeze, asthma and atopy in a cohort of paediatric patients with SCD, using the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) questionnaire [3], skin prick testing (SPT) and airway nitric oxide (NO) measurements. Wheeze in children with sickle cell disease is associated with airflow limitation and lung function decline We thank the Brampton SCD Family Group for their help publicising the project, Lani Lieberman for her assistance in designing the protocol, Edwin Ho for assistance in data entry and the Paediatric Consultants at the Hospital for Sick Children for providing funding for the study.

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)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory Journal→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→