MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282959087 · doi:10.46747/cfp.6806429

Use of β<sub>2</sub>-agonists for viral bronchiolitis

2022· article· en· W4282959087 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Greenky, Ran D. Goldman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Family Physician · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchiolitisMedicineAsthmaPediatricsAuscultationSalbutamolBronchodilatorEmergency departmentRespiratory soundsRespiratory systemPsychological interventionIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Question A 9-month-old baby presented to my rural emergency department with 2 days of cough and congestion and 1 day of breathing difficulties in the month of February. An auscultation examination of the lungs indicated there were scattered, faint wheezes and coarse sounds. Based on the baby’s age, symptomatology, and the winter season, the likely diagnosis was bronchiolitis. Are inhaled β2-agonists an appropriate treatment for this patient? Answer The use of inhaled β2-agonists in children younger than 2 years of age with bronchiolitis is not indicated. Wheezing is most commonly part of the diagnosis of bronchiolitis, a lower respiratory viral infection in young children. Unlike with asthma, smooth muscle constriction in the lungs is not a symptom of bronchiolitis. Treatment of bronchiolitis requires supportive care, but pharmaceutical interventions such as β2-agonists, steroids, and antibiotics have not been shown to decrease length of illness, illness severity, or hospitalization rates. There may be a subgroup of infants with bronchiolitis who respond to β2-agonists treatment; however, this group has not been fully identified in the literature to date.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Family PhysicianSame topicRespiratory viral infections researchFrench-language works237,207