MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399391950 · doi:10.1183/13993003.00624-2024

European Respiratory Society statement on preschool wheezing disorders: updated definitions, knowledge gaps and proposed future research directions

2024· article· en· W4399391950 on OpenAlexaff
Heidi Makrinioti, Valentina Fainardi, Klaus Bønnelykke, Adnan Čustović, Lisa Cicutto, Courtney Coleman, Thomas Eiwegger, Claudia E. Kuehni, Alexander Mœller, Eva S.L. Pedersen, Mariëlle W. Pijnenburg, Hilary Pinnock, Sarath Ranganathan, Thomy Tonia, Padmaja Subbarao, Sejal Saglani

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research CentreEuropean Respiratory Society
KeywordsMedicineStatement (logic)Respiratory systemPediatricsFamily medicineLinguisticsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the publication of the European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force reports on the management of preschool wheezing in 2008 and 2014, a large body of evidence has accumulated suggesting that the clinical phenotypes that were proposed (episodic (viral) wheezing and multiple-trigger wheezing) do not relate to underlying airway pathology and may not help determine response to treatment. Specifically, using clinical phenotypes alone may no longer be appropriate, and new approaches that can be used to inform clinical care are needed for future research. This ERS task force reviewed the literature published after 2008 related to preschool wheezing and has suggested that the criteria used to define wheezing disorders in preschool children should include age of diagnosis (0 to <6 years), confirmation of wheezing on at least one occasion, and more than one episode of wheezing ever. Furthermore, diagnosis and management may be improved by identifying treatable traits, including inflammatory biomarkers (blood eosinophils, aeroallergen sensitisation) associated with type-2 immunity and differential response to inhaled corticosteroids, lung function parameters and airway infection. However, more comprehensive use of biomarkers/treatable traits in predicting the response to treatment requires prospective validation. There is evidence that specific genetic traits may help guide management, but these must be adequately tested. In addition, the task force identified an absence of caregiver-reported outcomes, caregiver/self-management options and features that should prompt specialist referral for this age group. Priorities for future research include a focus on identifying 1) mechanisms driving preschool wheezing; 2) biomarkers of treatable traits and efficacy of interventions in those without allergic sensitisation/eosinophilia; 3) the need to include both objective outcomes and caregiver-reported outcomes in clinical trials; 4) the need for a suitable action plan for children with preschool wheezing; and 5) a definition of severe/difficult-to-treat preschool wheezing.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations47
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207