ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2026
Feasibility and acceptability of a passive digital marker for childhood asthma risk prognosis: a pilot cross-sectional study.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectronic health records (EHR)-based childhood asthma prediction may be a valid, cost-effective, and scalable option for early detection of at-risk children for targeted preventive intervention, but this approach has not been adopted in clinical practice. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the Pediatric Asthma Risk Score (PARS) as an EHR-based passive digital marker (PDM) for childhood asthma prognosis in clinical practice.
methodsFeasibility was defined by the level of concordance between the PARS and a clinician's classification of a case study's risk of developing school-age asthma. Acceptability was based on clinicians' intentions to use the PARS and its usability as a PDM for childhood asthma prognosis. Blinded to the PARS risk classification, clinicians were asked to predict the case study's risk of school-age asthma based on their professional judgment as either low or high risk and rate their confidence in their prediction. Unblinded to the PARS risk classification, clinicians rated the acceptability of the PARS as a PDM. Logistic regression models were used to summarize and identify correlates of feasibility and acceptability measures.
resultsThere was 74% (95% CI: 66-81%) concordance between the PARS and clinician prediction of our case study's risk of developing school-age asthma. Risk discordance (26%) was associated with low confidence in a clinician's professional judgment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 4.78; 95% CI: 1.85, 12.34) and PARS (aOR: 4.48; 95% CI: 1.16, 17.33). Unblinded to the PARS risk classification, more than 80% of clinicians ranked their intentions to use the PARS and its usability as a PDM as 4+ on a 0-6 Likert scale.
conclusionOur findings demonstrate preliminary feasibility and acceptability of the Pediatric Asthma Risk Score (PARS) as a passive digital marker for childhood asthma risk, supporting further evaluation in prospective real-world studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.