Airway Responsiveness to Histamine or Methacholine: Advances in Measurement and Interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of topical aspects of histamine or methacholine inhalation tests were discussed. First, the reporting of results as the dose delivered to the mouth by the method of aerosol generation and inhalation may allow better interpretation of results between laboratories. However, this requires investigation. Second, the histamine or methacholine dose-response curve differs in asthmatics with a moderate to severe increase in airway responsiveness from asthmatics with a mild increase in responsiveness or nonasthmatics. In the latter groups, the dose-response curve is positioned to the right and has a maximal response plateau. The disappearance of this limited maximal airway narrowing in asthmatics appears to be due to added abnormalities. Third, histamine or methacholine inhalation tests provide a sensitive and specific measure of the presence of variable airflow obstruction (asthma). They are useful to validate the diagnosis when symptoms are suggestive but spirometry is normal. The symptoms of asthma are not specific, and without objective confirmation the diagnosis is frequently misjudged even by the specialist. Finally, airway hyperresponsiveness to histamine or methacholine is not diagnostic of asthma when chronic airflow limitation is present; hyperresponsiveness to isocapnic hyperventilation may be more specific.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".