Asthma prevalence and control levels among Special Olympics athletes, and asthma‐related knowledge of their coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of asthma among athletes with intellectual disabilities, and the asthma knowledge levels of their coaches, is unknown. METHODS: Special Olympics Canada athletes completed a demographic questionnaire (n = 208). Athletes who identified as having ever or current asthma completed the Asthma Control Questionnaire and the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire and were measured for height, weight and lung function (n = 73). National level coaches (n = 27) completed a questionnaire pertaining to asthma knowledge. RESULTS: The prevalence of ever and current asthma were 35.5% (n = 73) and 21.1% (n = 44), respectively. Athletes with asthma reported that they had inadequately controlled asthma, but good quality of life. Coaches correctly answered 43% true/false questions on the survey, indicating suboptimal asthma knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Athletes with intellectual disabilities appear to have a greater prevalence of asthma than the general population; however, coaches of these athletes appear to have limited knowledge pertaining to asthma and exercise-induced asthma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".