MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914815388 · doi:10.25011/cim.v41i4.32223

Routine use of post-bronchodilator testing in pulmonary function testing labs

2018· article· en· W2914815388 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParvovirus B19 Infection Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityAlberta Medical AssociationAlberta Health ServicesUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIn uteroPregnancyCytomegalovirusTransmission (telecommunications)Infectious disease (medical specialty)SyphilisToxoplasmosisZika virusImmunologyPediatricsVirologyFetusHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)VirusDiseaseViral diseaseBiologyInternal medicineHerpesviridae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Pulmonary function tests (PFTs), including spirometry with and without post-bronchodilator (post-BD) testing, are frequently performed in the assessment of asthma, along with other obstructive airway disorders. Multiple publications over the past 15 years have noted that one in three physician-diagnosed asthma cases are not in fact asthma. In this quality assurance project, we assess whether PFT labs in Alberta have policies on post-BD testing, as extraneous and unnecessary use of post-BD testing can lead to wasted staff and patient time and unnecessary expenses to the health care system. Methods We reviewed, in collaboration with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta and Alberta Medical Association, all PFT labs in the province of Alberta (hospital-based private not-for-profit [NFP] and private for-profit [FP] labs). This health policy study of PFT labs involved identifying the proportions and regional distribution of NFP and private FP labs in the province of Alberta while assessing post-BD policies. Each PFT lab was asked for their policy regarding spirometry and asthma diagnosis from May 1 to August 31, 2017. Results A total of 92 PFT labs were identified in Alberta, 74 of which were private FP (independent) labs, while 18 were private NFP (public) hospital-based labs. Policies were as follows: (i) post-BD policy existed (and if so routinely performed / not routinely done); (ii) no post-BD policy; and (iii) lab chose not to participate. All 18 hospital labs responded: 10 had no policy; six had a policy or algorithm; one did not perform post-BD testing (exercise testing) and one had multiple testing sites. Of the private FP labs, three had relevant policies and/or algorithm and 10 had none. No information was provided from 61 labs. Access to PFT labs in Northern Alberta was limited. Conclusions Lab policies surrounding post-BD testing were found to be heterogeneous in Alberta. Low response rates, despite the use of a systems approach and requests in writing and in person from FP labs, were notable. Development of a standardized policy across the province would be beneficial. Further higher-level review of the appropriateness of post-BD use in both FP and NFP PFT labs is needed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.430
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.033 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicParvovirus B19 Infection StudiesFrench-language works237,207