MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Healthcare Burden of Pediatric Cough and Associations With Preschool Asthma – Findings from the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4410270011 on OpenAlexaffabout
Talat Ahmed, Myrtha E. Reyna, Laia Vega, Makiko Nanishi, Maria Medeleanu, Arlene E. Dent, Indra Narang, Piush J. Mandhane, Elinor Simons, Theo J. Moraes, Padmaja Subbarao

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory and Cough-Related Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of AlbertaHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaCohortPediatricsCohort studyLongitudinal studyHealth careEnvironmental healthFamily medicineImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: Asthma is the most common chronic airway disease among preschool-aged children and carries a high healthcare burden in terms of unplanned healthcare visits, medication-use and lower health-related quality of life. Although cough is a clinically relevant symptom of childhood asthma, current prediction tools focus on wheeze as its primary indicator, and there is conflicting literature regarding the healthcare burden of cough. We evaluated the association between cough features and asthma, and its healthcare burden among Canadian preschool-aged children with/without coexisting wheeze. Methods: Data from the CHILD Cohort Study, a prospective, longitudinal general-population Canadian birth cohort study was used. Information on presence, duration, severity, and frequency of cough without cold, wheeze, unscheduled doctor visits (UDVs), hospital visits (HVs) and use of bronchodilators (BD), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and oral corticosteroids (OCS) in the first 5-years of life were obtained via parent-reported questionnaires and in-person clinical assessments. Longitudinal associations between cough and healthcare/medication-use outcomes were estimated via repeated measures generalized estimation equations, using data collected during infancy (birth to 12-months) and preschool (>12months to 5-years). Models were adjusted for breastfeeding duration, sex, smoke exposure, maternal asthma, study site, family income and preschool asthma diagnosis. Results: Of 3,042 participants during the infancy period, 324 (10.6%) had cough without cold, and 737 (24.2%) had wheeze. Of 2,822 participants during preschool visits, 288 (10.2%) had cough and 703 (24.9%) had wheeze. In infancy, cough was significantly associated with increased UDVs, HVs, and OCS-use. Compared to cough, infants with wheeze had stronger association with UDVs, HVs, ICS and BD-use. Notably, both cough [adjusted odds ratio: 1.39 (95% confidence interval: 1.01 – 1.93)] and wheeze [1.45 (1.14 – 1.84)] were associated with OCS-use. Moreover, infants with cough ≥4 days were 74% more likely to require UDVs, and those with moderate-severe cough (i.e. cough disturbs daily activities/sleep) were at least twice as likely to require UDVs, HVs and OCS-use (Table). In preschool, odds of UDVs, HVs, ICS and BD were increased in children with cough and further increased in those with wheeze. Nonetheless, preschoolers exhibiting cough ≥4 days, or moderate-severe cough were significantly associated with increased UDVs, HVs, ICS-use and BD-use independent of wheeze (Table). Conclusions: Cough without cold, even in the absence of wheeze, carries a high healthcare utilization burden from infancy throughout preschool, and its relationship to asthma medication-use demonstrates a need to re-evaluate treatment plans among non-wheezing children with cough ≥4 days or moderate-severe cough.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchFrench-language works237,207