Distinct temporal patterns of immediate asthmatic reactions due to high‐ and low‐molecular‐weight agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exposure to occupational agents can cause immediate asthmatic reactions. OBJECTIVE: It can be hypothesized that the pattern of immediate reactions is different for high (HMW)- and low-molecular-weight (LMW) agents. To test this, we studied the temporal features of reactions in workers who underwent specific inhalation challenges for possible occupational asthma. METHODS: We examined 467 immediate reactions due to HMW (n = 248, 53%) and LWW (n = 219, 47%) agents in regards to timing of the maximum reaction and recovery. RESULTS: The median duration of exposure to elicit significant immediate reactions was comparable for HMW and LMW agents (15 min). The median maximum fall in FEV (1) occurred after 20 min for LMW by comparison with 10 min for HMW agents (P < 0.001). The median timing of recovery of FEV (1) to 10% baseline was shorter for HMW (60 min) than for LMW (90 min) agents (P < 0.01), and significantly more subjects recovered to 10% baseline (89.5%) for HMW than for LMW agents (72.6%) (P < 0.001). Confounding variables such as age, atopy, baseline airway calibre and the maximum fall in FEV (1) at the time of the immediate reaction did not alter the significant effect of the nature of the agent per se. Immediate reactions were followed by a late asthmatic reaction more often in the case of LMW (37.3%) than HMW (26.2%) agents (P < 0.05). Significant changes in non-specific bronchial responsiveness were significantly (P = 0.02) more frequent after reactions to LMW (31.9%) than to HMW (21.4%) agents. We found similar trends by comparing reactions to flour (n = 113), the principal cause of reactions to HMW agents, and diisocyanates (n = 111), the principal LMW agent. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study shows distinct patterns for immediate reactions due to occupational agents. These results can provide useful guidelines for performing specific inhalation challenges and improve the safety of the procedure.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".