Assessment of ocular and nasal irritation in asthmatics resulting from fragrance exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many asthmatics report worsening of symptoms following exposure to odours and sensory irritants commonly found in household and cosmetic products. Despite this, little evidence exists to confirm the degree to which such subjective reports are correlated with localized, objective changes in the upper or lower airways following a fragranced product exposure. OBJECTIVE: Subjective symptom reports were compared to objective measures in mild asthmatics, moderate asthmatics and non-asthmatics following exposure to one of two fragranced household aerosol mixtures and a clean air control condition to determine if asthmatics reported greater subjective symptoms of nasal congestion or exhibited objective measures of elevated ocular irritation and nasal congestion following exposure than did healthy controls. METHODS: Measures of nasal mucosal swelling, using acoustic rhinometry, and photographic assessments of ocular hyperemia, using macro-photography, were taken before exposure, immediately after an initial 5-min exposure and again following a 30-min exposure to either of two, fragranced aerosol products and a clean air control. Self-reports of nasal patency at each time-point were also obtained. RESULTS: Although moderate asthmatics tended to report more nasal congestion following fragranced product exposure than did non-asthmatics, no exposure-related changes in ocular redness or nasal mucosal swelling were observed among the three groups. Spirometry readings also failed to show evidence of any exposure-related changes in pulmonary function. CONCLUSION: Despite claims that exposure to fragranced products may trigger ocular and respiratory symptoms among asthmatics, we found no evidence that 30 min of exposure to one of two fragranced aerosols elicited objective adverse effects in the ocular or nasal mucosa of mild and moderate asthmatics. While physiological mechanisms of fragrance impact may yet be responsible for some of the adverse reports among asthmatics following fragrance exposure, such reports may also reflect a non-physiological locus of symptom perception triggered by other sensory cues.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".