The impact of identifying laryngeal obstruction syndromes on reducing treatment of pediatric asthma: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inducible laryngeal obstruction (ILO) in children is underrecognized. This systematic review characterizes the scientific evidence on the impact of pediatric ILO diagnosis and treatment on asthma medication use. This review, registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020209168), utilized database searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to October 2020. Both experimental and observational studies on ILO and asthma outcomes in patients ≤18 years were included. Population characteristics (sample size, sex, age, and comorbidities) and study outcomes (medication usage and respiratory symptoms) were extracted. The risk of bias was assessed with the National Toxicology Program's Office of Health Assessment and Risk of Bias Rating Tool. Data are presented narratively due to study heterogeneity. Of 1091 studies, 1076 titles and abstracts were screened after duplicate removal. Screening 31 full texts yielded eight pre-post studies. Patients were an average of 14.1 years old, 15% male, and >90% used asthma medication; 40% reported allergies, 30% gastroesophageal reflux, and 20% anxiety or depression. Most patients received at least one intervention, with 75% showing symptomatic improvement and >75% decreasing or stopping asthma medications. Studies were small with a high risk of selection, confounding, and detection bias. Asthma management was not a primary outcome in any of the studies. Overall, ILO patients were often diagnosed with or treated for asthma before ILO diagnosis. Evidence from individual studies suggests that comorbidities including ILO, gastroesophageal reflux, allergies, and anxiety should be considered in pediatric patients with asthma not responsive to medical therapy. Further research is required to determine the proportion of impacted asthma patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".