Nebulized Magnesium Does Not Show Benefit for Acute Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Source: Schuh S, , Sweeney J, , Rumantir M, , et al. Effect of nebulized magnesium vs placebo added to albuterol on hospitalization among children with refractory acute asthma treated in the emergency department: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(20):2038-2047; doi:10.1001/jama.2020.19839[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2] Investigators from multiple institutions conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of nebulized magnesium in reducing hospitalizations in children presenting with an acute asthma exacerbation who are refractory to initial treatment. Children 2-17 years old who presented to 1 of 7 tertiary-care pediatric emergency departments in Canada with an acute asthma exacerbation were eligible for participation in the study if they remained in moderate to severe respiratory distress, defined as a Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) score ≥5, 1 hour after treatment with oral dexamethasone and 3 consecutive treatments of albuterol and ipratropium delivered by metered dose inhaler or via nebulization. At enrollment, participants were randomized to receive 3 consecutive nebulized treatments of magnesium sulfate (600 … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.volume%253D324%26rft.spage%253D2038%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.2020.19839%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2020.19839&link_type=DOI
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
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".