An evaluation of peripheral blood eosinophil/basophil progenitors following nasal allergen challenge in patients with allergic rhinitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a single nasal allergen challenge on peripheral blood eosinophil/basophil (Eo/B) progenitor cells and induced sputum eosinophil counts in subjects with allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Sixteen adults entered a sequential nasal control and allergen challenge study, outside the pollen season. Blind assessment of peripheral blood Eo/B progenitor colony forming units (CFU), induced sputum and nasal lavage cell counts was made before and 24 h after both challenges. Subjects recorded their rhinitis symptoms and nasal peak inspiratory flow, hourly at home, following both challenges. RESULTS: When comparing the values 24 h after the control vs. the allergen challenge, there were no significant differences in Eo/B progenitor CFU (control (mean, SD): 3.6 (1.0)/10(6) cells; allergen: 4.4 (1.1)/10(6) cells) or sputum eosinophils (control (median, inter-quartile range): 1.0 (0.3-1.7)%; allergen: 0.7 (0.0-1.3)%) despite a significant increase in the percentage (median (inter-quartile range) of eosinophils in nasal lavage (control: 0.6 (0.1-0.9)%; allergen; 1.9 (0.9-8.1)% and significant worsening of nasal peak inspiratory flow and rhinitis symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a significant increase in nasal symptoms and lavage eosinophil counts, a single nasal allergen challenge was not sufficient to elicit a measurable haemopoietic response in circulation, or an increase in sputum eosinophil counts.
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 | 0.001 | 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".