Predictive value of allergy and pulmonary function tests for the diagnosis of asthma in elite athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma is frequently found in athletes, often associated with rhinitis and allergy. AIM: To study the predictive value of allergy and pulmonary function tests for the diagnosis of asthma in athletes. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight national preOlympic athletes underwent an accurate medical examination including a validated questionnaire for asthma and rhinitis, spirometric recordings and skin prick testing with a panel of the most frequent inhalant allergens. Bronchodilator and/or exercise challenge were also performed in asthmatic subjects. RESULTS: Clinical asthma was present in 20.4% of athletes, rhinitis in 35.3% (in 21.4% of cases alone and in 13.9% associated with asthma). Positive prick tests were recorded in 44.4% of athletes (in 60.5% of asthmatics, in 95.2% of rhinitics and in 21.0% of nonasthmatic - nonrhinitic subjects). Mean spirometric values and distribution of abnormal values were not different among asthmatics, rhinitics and nonasthmatics - nonrhinitic patients. Skin-tests positivity was not related to the abnormal spirometric data found in individual cases. Provocation tests with bronchodilators or exercise did not appear sensitive enough to diagnose mild forms of asthma in subjects with normal basal spirometric values. CONCLUSIONS: Allergy testing and spirometry should be performed routinely in athletes because of the high prevalence of allergy, rhinitis and asthma in this population. However, the predictive value of these tests and of the bronchial provocation tests performed in this study seems too low to document mild or subclinical asthma in athletes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".