MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120912559 · doi:10.1186/s13223-020-00500-7

Bidirectional association between asthma and otitis media in children

2021· article· en· W3120912559 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
So Young Kim, Hyerim Kim, Chanyang Min, Hyo Geun Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsMedicineOtitisAsthmaConfidence intervalHazard ratioCohortInternal medicinePediatricsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study explored the reciprocal association between otitis media and asthma in children. METHODS: The 2002-2013 Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service-National Sample Cohort participants < 15 years old were used. In study I, 14,665 asthma patients from 2002 through 2005 were selected. The asthma patients were matched 1:1 with the control I group, and the occurrence of otitis media was followed until 2013. In study II, 27,043 otitis media patients from 2002 through 2005 were selected. The otitis media patients were matched 1:1 with the control II group, and the occurrence of asthma was followed until 2013. Stratified Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze the hazard ratio (HRs) of asthma for otitis media (study I) and otitis media for asthma (study II). RESULTS: The HR for otitis media was 1.46 in asthma patients (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.40-1.52, P < 0.001). The HR for asthma was 1.43 in otitis media patients (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36-1.50, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Asthma and otitis media have a bidirectional association in children.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergy Asthma and Clinical ImmunologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207