MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981266696 · doi:10.1183/09031936.00073312

Smoking and asthma: dangerous liaisons

2012· review· en· W1981266696 on OpenAlexaff
Riccardo Polosa, Neil C. Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsthmaMedicineSmoking cessationAdverse effectIntensive care medicinePopulationLung functionClinical trialAsthma managementRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyInternal medicineLungEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cigarette smoking and asthma interact to induce important adverse effects on clinical, prognostic and therapeutic outcomes. This review examines recent evidence on the harmful effects of smoking in asthma, possible underlying inflammatory mechanisms for this altered response, management options for these patients and potential future therapeutic directions. Active smokers, particularly females, are at risk of developing asthma. Prevalence rates for smoking in asthma are relatively close to those found in the general population. Smokers with asthma experience worse asthma control than nonsmokers with asthma. Mechanisms for the adverse effects of smoking in asthma include altered airway inflammation and corticosteroid insensitivity. Quitting smoking can improve symptoms and lung function, but the low rates of smoking cessation highlights the need for improved strategies for managing these patients. Clinical trials assessing new therapies for asthma need to enroll smokers to identify treatments that are effective in the asthma smoking phenotype.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · 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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations373
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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