Stronger nasal responsiveness to cold air in individuals with rhinitis and asthma, compared with rhinitis alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have previously proposed that, compared with rhinitis alone, the constellation of upper and lower airway allergic disease is a manifestation of a more severe form of a syndrome affecting the entire airway. If this is correct, not only the lower, but also the upper airways of patients with asthma and rhinitis should demonstrate more abnormalities compared with patients with rhinitis alone, including higher sensitivity to irritant factors. Objective To test the hypothesis that, a previously well-studied natural nasal stimulus, cold, dry air (CDA), produces a stronger response in subjects with allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma compared with subjects with AR alone. METHODS: We performed nasal provocation with CDA on 24 individuals with asthma and rhinitis and 17 with rhinitis alone. Prior to and after the challenge, nasal symptoms were recorded using visual analogue scales and nasal lavages were performed to determine histamine and lysozyme levels. RESULTS: The two groups reacted differently to CDA: after the challenge, patients with rhinitis and asthma reported significantly higher scores for nasal congestion, rhinorrhea and lacrimation. Also in this group, significant increases in histamine and in lysozyme levels in nasal lavage fluids were induced by CDA. In subjects with rhinitis alone, CDA failed to increase histamine or lysozyme levels above baseline. The CDA-induced change from baseline in histamine was significantly higher in the patients with rhinitis and asthma, compared with the rhinitis-only group. CONCLUSION: Patients with AR and asthma have stronger nasal responsiveness to CDA compared with patients with rhinitis alone. This observation is consistent with the notion that compared with rhinitis alone, the presence of asthma and rhinitis signifies a higher degree of functional abnormality of the entire airway.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".