MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7139324260

The Healthcare Burden of Pediatric Cough and its Association with Preschool Asthma

2025· dissertation· W7139324260 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tabina Anees Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2025
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory and Cough-Related Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsthmaBronchodilatorHealth careChronic coughAsthma medicationAirwayDiseaseRespiratory disease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asthma is the most common chronic airway disease and contributes to pediatric healthcare burden. Although cough is a clinically relevant asthma symptom, predictive tools prioritize wheeze, leaving the burden of cough underexplored. This thesis examines associations between cough, asthma, and healthcare utilization, and identifies longitudinal cough trajectories in Canadian preschool-aged children using data from the CHILD Study, a prospective birth cohort. Parent-reported and clinical questionnaires captured cough presence, duration, severity, and frequency; wheeze; unscheduled doctor visits (UDVs); hospital visits (HVs); and medication use, including bronchodilators and corticosteroids (inhaled and oral). Generalized estimating equations assessed longitudinal associations, while group-based trajectory modeling identified cough patterns. Cough lasting ≥4 days or of moderate-severe intensity was associated with increased medication use and healthcare visits. Three distinct cough trajectories were identified, where the late-onset trajectory was associated with UDVs and bronchodilator use. These findings suggest that cough warrants careful evaluation by clinicians in early childhood.

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)0.000
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 score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchFrench-language works237,207