Asthma Medication Use in Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Survivors: A Retrospective Population Level Data Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine if congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) survivors had worse long-term respiratory outcomes compared with age-matched controls, as measured by inhaled bronchodilator use, inhaled steroid use, and asthma-related physician visits. Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective case-control study of infants with isolated CDH from 1991 to 2013. The primary outcome measures were inhaled bronchodilator prescriptions, inhaled steroid prescriptions, and asthma-related physician visits between 0 and 5 years of age and between 5 and 10 years of age. Subgroup analysis compared the same outcomes for CDH patients grouped by: birth weight, gestational age, side of defect, defect size, liver herniation, hernia sac, and pulmonary hypertension. Results Fifty-six patients with CDH and 753 age-matched controls met the inclusion criteria for the 0 to 5 years of age analysis. Between 0 and 5 years of age, more CDH survivors were prescribed an inhaled bronchodilator (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47[1.38–4.48], p = 0.001) and inhaled steroid (OR = 2.03[1.07–3.74], p = 0.03), and had an asthma-related physician visit (OR = 1.92[1.00–3.56], p = 0.04). Thirty-eight cases and 491 controls met the inclusion criteria for the 5 to 10 years of age analysis. Between 5 and 10 years of age, CDH survivors were not more likely to be prescribed inhaled bronchodilators, inhaled steroids, or have an asthma-related physician visit. Among the CDH patients, we did not find a clinical characteristic associated with increased inhaled bronchodilator or steroid prescriptions at any age. Conclusion A history of CDH is associated with higher rates of inhaled bronchodilator prescriptions, inhaled steroid prescriptions, and asthma-related physician visits from 0 to 5 years of age compared with age-matched controls. However, this difference resolves by 5 to 10 years of age.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".