MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386144048 · doi:10.2196/50085

Trajectories of Controller Therapy Use Before and After Asthma-Related Hospitalization in Children and Adults: Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

2023· article· en· W4386144048 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manon Belhassen, Maëva Nolin, Flore Jacoud, Claire Marant Micallef, Éric Van Ganse

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyMedicineAsthmaCohortPediatricsCohort studyPopulationEnvironmental healthSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for asthma impairs control and may cause exacerbation, including asthma-related hospitalization (ARH). In prospective studies, ICS use peaked around ARH, but information on routine care use is limited. Since ARH is a major outcome, controller therapy use in routine care before and after ARH should be documented. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to distinguish ICS use typologies (trajectories) before and after ARH, and assess their relationships with sociodemographic, disease, and health care characteristics. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using a 1% random sample of the French claims database. All patients hospitalized for asthma between January 01, 2013, and December 31, 2015, were classified as either children (aged 1-10 years) or teens/adults (aged ≥11 years). Health care resource use was assessed between 24 and 12 months before ARH. ICS use was computed with the Continuous Measures of Medication Acquisition-7 (CMA7) for the 4 quarters before and after ARH. Initially, the overall impact of hospitalization on the CMA7 value was studied using a segmented regression analysis in both children and teens/adults. Then, group-based trajectory modeling differentiated the groups with similar ICS use. We tested different models having 2 to 5 distinct trajectory groups before selecting the most appropriate trajectory form. We finally selected the model with the lowest Bayesian Information Criterion, the highest proportion of patients in each group, and the maximum estimated probability of assignment to a specific group. RESULTS: Overall, 863 patients were included in the final study cohort, of which 447 (51.8%) were children and 416 (48.2%) were teens/adults. In children, the average CMA7 value was 12.6% at the start of the observation period, and there was no significant quarter-to-quarter change in the value (P=.14) before hospitalization. Immediately after hospitalization, the average CMA7 value rose by 34.9% (P=.001), before a significant decrease (P=.01) of 7.0% per quarter. In teens/adults, the average CMA7 value was 31.0% at the start, and there was no significant quarter-to-quarter change in the value (P=.08) before hospitalization. Immediately after hospitalization, the average CMA7 value rose by 26.9% (P=.002), before a significant decrease (P=.01) of 7.0% per quarter. We identified 3 and 5 trajectories before ARH in children and adults, respectively, and 5 after ARH for both groups. Trajectories were related to sociodemographic characteristics (particularly, markers of social deprivation) and to potentially inappropriate health care, such as medical management and choice of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although ARH had an overall positive impact on ICS use trajectories, the effect was often transient, and patient behaviors were heterogeneous. Along with overall trends, distinct trajectories were identified, which were related to specific patients and health care characteristics. Our data reinforce the evidence that inappropriate use of ICS paves the way for ARH.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance→Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→