Fragrance materials in asthma: a pilot study using a surrogate aerosol product
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many household products contain fragrances. Little is known about exposure to fragrances on human health, particularly within the airways. This study aimed to evaluate how common household fragrance products (i.e. air fresheners, cleaning products) affect people with asthma, who frequently report sensitivity to these products. Many of these products have volatile organic compounds or semi-volatile organic compounds. This study evaluated nine fragrance materials in an aerosol formulation to assess effects on airway physiology, airway inflammation and symptom perception in normal controls and those with asthma. METHODS: The effects of fragrances were evaluated in people without asthma, people with mild asthma and people with moderate asthma in a four-way crossover placebo-controlled study. Subjects were exposed twice to a fragranced aerosol and twice to a placebo aerosol (15 and 30 min each). Subjects completed a questionnaire for 29 symptoms during and up to 3 h after each exposure scenario. Spirometry was performed prior to and 3 h post-exposure; sputum induction was conducted 3 h post-exposure. RESULTS: Nasal symptoms showed the greatest frequency of response in all three subject groups, and moderate asthmatics reported the greatest symptom severity and symptom types. No significant differences were noted in physiology or cellular inflammation. CONCLUSION: A trend for increased symptoms was noted in moderate asthmatics, suggesting that asthma severity may play a factor in fragrance sensitivity.
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) | 0.001 | 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".