MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2795401482 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy006

Response to The routine use of oral steroids in paediatric asthma is not routine

2018· article· en· W2795401482 on OpenAlexaff
Neale Smith, Alice Wang, Kaitlyn Shaw, Gabriella Groeneweg, Ran D. Goldman, Bryan Wilkinson, Ricardo Jimenez, Leah Mwai, Bruce Carleton

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaChild and Family Research InstituteVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaIntensive care medicinePediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Dr Kuzik for his comments; we welcome opportunities for further discussion and elaboration of our findings. Dr Kuzik’s position is that “the need for oral corticosteroids (OCS) during viral triggered asthma exacerbations [is] a management failure, not a component of routine care”. We could not agree more—in fact, the very point of our paper was to defend this proposition. Our study population consisted of children who had experienced at least one emergency department (ED) visit as a result of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI)-induced asthma exacerbations. Their need for ED visits demonstrates that the asthma condition among these children is not effectively under control. The aim of the intervention described in our paper was twofold. First, it was to provide parents whose children had been compelled to attend the ED with an immediate alternative to respond to the issue which brought them to the hospital, and potentially to prevent unnecessary healthcare use. Second, and most importantly, it was intended to create an opportunity for parents to engage with their child’s primary care provider in a discussion about asthma management. That is why the intervention was limited to a single short course of steroids only. If this one-time only, ED-issued prescription was used, parents seeking a refill would be compelled to discuss with their child’s physician how to prevent such a need in the first place. If not used, parents could discuss their concerns and consider options for how else to prevent exacerbations. If this intervention led to routinization of the prescription and use of OCS, this would, in our minds, be clearly and unequivocally a failure of paediatric asthma management. While the paper published here focused largely upon qualitatively understanding parents’ response and willingness to take up this intervention, we argue that—uptake or not—the value of this intervention is best assessed by the extent to which such parent-provider discussions are ultimately promoted.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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