MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323669817 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070459

Individualised risk prediction model for exacerbations in patients with severe asthma: protocol for a multicentre real-world risk modelling study

2023· article· en· W4323669817 on OpenAlexaff
Tae Yoon Lee, Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Chandra Prakash Yadav, David Price, Richard Beasley, Christer Janson, Mariko Siyue Koh, Rupsa Roy, Wenjia Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of SydneyNational University of Singapore
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaObservational studyRisk assessmentEpidemiologyPopulationExacerbationEuropean unionProtocol (science)Asthma exacerbationsCohort studyInstitutional review boardIntensive care medicinePediatricsInternal medicineEnvironmental healthAlternative medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Severe asthma is associated with a disproportionally high disease burden, including the risk of severe exacerbations. Accurate prediction of the risk of severe exacerbations may enable clinicians to tailor treatment plans to an individual patient. This study aims to develop and validate a novel risk prediction model for severe exacerbations in patients with severe asthma, and to examine the potential clinical utility of this tool. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The target population is patients aged 18 years or older with severe asthma. Based on the data from the International Severe Asthma Registry (n=8925), a prediction model will be developed using a penalised, zero-inflated count model that predicts the rate or risk of exacerbation in the next 12 months. The risk prediction tool will be externally validated among patients with physician-assessed severe asthma in an international observational cohort, the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (n=1652). Validation will include examining model calibration (ie, the agreement between observed and predicted rates), model discrimination (ie, the extent to which the model can distinguish between high-risk and low-risk individuals) and the clinical utility at a range of risk thresholds. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has obtained ethics approval from the Institutional Review Board of National University of Singapore (NUS-IRB-2021-877), the Anonymised Data Ethics and Protocol Transparency Committee (ADEPT1924) and the University of British Columbia (H22-01737). Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: European Union electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies, EU PAS Register (EUPAS46088).

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.007

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→