MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1663863154 · doi:10.1155/2007/753450

Understanding Allergic Asthma from Allergen Inhalation Tests

2007· review· en· W1663863154 on OpenAlexaff
Donald W. Cockcroft, Fredrick E. Hargreave, Paul M. O’Byrne, Louis‐Philippe Boulet

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAllergenImmunologyAsthmaAirwayAllergyInhalationProvocation testAllergen immunotherapyAnesthesiaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The allergen challenge has evolved, in less than 150 years, from a crude tool used to document the etiology of allergen-induced disease to a well-controlled tool used today to investigate the pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy of asthma. Highlights of the authors' involvement with the allergen challenge include confirmation of the immunoglobulin E-dependence of the late asthmatic response, importance of (nonallergic) airway hyper-responsiveness as a determinant of the airway response to allergen, identification of allergen-induced increase in airway hyper-responsiveness, documentation of beta(2)-agonist-induced increase in airway response to allergen (including eosinophilic inflammation), advances in understanding the pathophysiology and kinetics of allergen-induced airway responses, and development of a multicentre clinical trial group devoted to using the allergen challenge for investigating promising new therapeutic strategies for asthma.

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)0.001
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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