MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W74882665 · doi:10.1155/2001/245261

Control of Asthma in Canada: Failure to Achieve Guideline Targets

2001· article· en· W74882665 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsGlaxoSmithKline (Canada)McGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaGuidelineTelephone interviewPopulationCross-sectional studyPhysical therapyRandom digit dialingPulmonary function testingFamily medicinePediatricsEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the degree of asthma control achieved by patients with asthma in Canada and to describe the impact of poor asthma control. DESIGN: Population-based, cross-sectional telephone interview survey of Canadians with doctor-diagnosed asthma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Random digit dialing was used to identify a representative sample of Canadians with asthma. A total of 801 adults and 200 parents of children aged four to 15 years were interviewed over the telephone. Telephone interviews were also conducted with 266 physicians. RESULTS: Only 24% of patients achieved disease control by meeting the six symptom-based criteria listed by the 1996 Canadian Asthma Consensus Guidelines as appropriate treatment targets. Fifty-seven per cent of patients failed to meet two or more of the six control criteria and were considered poorly controlled. Fifty-one per cent had required urgent care for out of control asthma at least once in the year before the survey. Nonetheless, 91% of patients thought that their asthma was adequately controlled. Physicians shared this optimism: 77% of family physicians and 90% of respirologists believed that they were usually able to achieve optimal asthma control in their patients. Few physicians gauged asthma control by tracking more than one or two symptoms, and just over one-half (54%) of patients surveyed recalled ever having had a lung function test. One-half (48%) of patients with poorly controlled asthma who used inhaled steroids did not understand the role of inhaled steroids; one-third (32%) of patients with poorly controlled asthma who used short acting bronchodilators misunderstood the action of quick relief bronchodilators. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of Canadians with asthma suffer from inadequate control of their disease. Suboptimal control of asthma is associated with excess health care use. Inadequate monitoring by physicians and poor patient education may be factors contributing to this problem.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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