Post Infectious Bronchiolitis Obliterans: Knowledge, Attitude and Practice survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To outline what is commonly understood, perceived and followed at individual institutions across the country on the subject of Post-Infectious Bronchiolitis Obliterans(PIBO) Methods: A 64-item web-based questionnaire with three sections addressing key domains in PIBO was employed. The questionnaire assessed knowledge points, attitudes and practice essentials which were consolidated and analysed. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 40 paediatricians/sub-specialists across 15 cities in India, and 88% of them were paediatric pulmonologists. The knowledge about disease process, clinical presentation, diagnostic modalities and treatment options were consistent with established literature. The prognosis was thought to be favourable by 75% respondents. Considerable heterogenicity was noted in the choice of first-line drugs, their doses, durations and combinations. Similarly, the time of the institution of second-line medication and drug of choice exhibited discrepancies. Conclusions There is a sizeable ambiguity in treatment practices concerning PIBO. This uncertainty calls for a review and consensus among Indian practitioners.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".