Acuity of asthma exacerbations in Alberta, Canada is increasing: a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Asthma is a common respiratory illness affecting 2.8 million Canadians, including 9.7% of Albertans. Prior studies showed a substantial decrease in ED visits for asthma in the decade preceding 2010, followed by a stabilization. This was attributed to improvements in the pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments for asthma during that period followed by a balance between epidemiologic drivers and protective factors in the population. Methods We assessed whether this trend continued in Alberta from 2010 to 2022 using population level data for the volume of daily ED visits, acuity of asthma exacerbations in the ED, and hospitalization rate. Results The mean number of ED visits decreased from 4.5 to 2.2 per million persons per day, but the acuity of exacerbations and the proportion requiring hospitalization increased. The number of patients presenting with the highest level of acuity increased by over 300%, and the percentage of patients requiring hospitalization increased from 6.8 to 11.3%. Conclusion Total ED visits for asthma exacerbations continues to decline in Alberta. The reasons for an increase in more severe exacerbations requires further attention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".