Inhaled mannitol identifies methacholine-responsive children with active asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhaled mannitol has been developed for bronchial challenge testing in adults. This study determined if mannitol could identify children with active asthma and responsive to methacholine, and whether mannitol challenge was faster to complete than methacholine challenge. Twenty-five children (aged 6-13 years) responsive to methacholine and 10 nonasthmatic children unresponsive to methacholine were studied. The methacholine challenge (Cockcroft protocol) was followed by a mannitol challenge on separate days. Twenty-one asthmatic children were positive to mannitol. Three taking inhaled corticosteroids with borderline methacholine responsiveness did not respond to mannitol, and one could not complete the mannitol challenge due to cough. The geometric mean (GM) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for PD(15) for mannitol was 39 mg (19, 78), and PC(20) for methacholine was 0.6 mg/mL (0.35-1.02) (r(p) = 0.75, p < 0.001, n = 21). Responses to mannitol were repeatable: GM PD(15) for the first challenge was 29 mg (CI: 17,50), and for the second challenge, 33 mg (CI: 20, 55) (P = 0.44, n = 9). Mannitol was faster to administer than methacholine (median (range)) 14 min (5-32) vs. 29 min (19-49), respectively (P < 0.001). Time to recover to baseline FEV(1) spontaneously and after bronchodilator administration was similar for both challenges. There were no significant falls in arterial oxygen saturations. During mannitol challenge, the mean (SD) fall in FEV(1) in nonasthmatic children was 3.1% (2.9). We conclude that mannitol identifies children with airway hyperresponsiveness and is faster to perform than the methacholine challenge.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".