MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997901406 · doi:10.1097/aci.0b013e328357cc32

Asthma and rhinitis

2012· review· en· W1997901406 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Ève Boulay, Andréanne Morin, Catherine Laprise, Louis‐Philippe Boulet

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiInstitut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaExhaled nitric oxideAirwayAllergyImmunologyAnesthesiaSpirometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Asthma and rhinitis are commonly associated and they influence their respective control. New observations have contributed to better understand how to assess those conditions and how they influence each other. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies found that not only the intensity, but also the duration of rhinitis could be correlated with the development of asthma and possibly its remission. The measure of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) has been used to show the presence of lower airway inflammation in rhinitic patients, with or without asthma. Furthermore, it has been shown that allergic rhinitis could affect asthma control in children as in adults, and consequently suggested that allergic rhinitis and asthma should be concomitantly approached in regard to their diagnosis and treatment. Additional observations showed improvements in various asthma outcomes with the treatment of rhinitis. SUMMARY: These new data confirm the strong link between asthma and rhinitis, the importance of their interactions, and the need to identify and treat rhinitis adequately in asthmatic patients.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Allergy and Clinical ImmunologySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207