MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W86570871 · doi:10.1155/2006/724167

Introduction of Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists in Manitoba

2006· article· en· W86570871 on OpenAlexaffabout
C Macie, Kate Wooldrage, Jure Manfreda, NR Anthonisen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaMontelukastMedical prescriptionChronic bronchitisLeukotriene receptorCorticosteroidPediatricsBronchitisInhaled corticosteroidsIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient characteristics and prescribing patterns during the introduction of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) in Manitoba are described using the provincial health database. Residents of Manitoba with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis or claims for respiratory medications were identified. Six thousand forty-one of 160,626 (3.8%) patients received LTRA; the likelihood of receiving LTRA increased if a patient was younger than 15 years, lived in a rural locale, had asthma, had frequent physician visits or used inhaled corticosteroids. Subsequent prescriptions (68%) were associated with the number of physician visits and inhaled corticosteroid use, which were thought to be indexes of severity. Patients, especially children, who received more than five prescriptions showed evidence of increased asthma control, but there was little evidence of benefit in less selected patient groups due, at least in part, to poor compliance with all respiratory drugs.

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)0.001
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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