Consensus on work-related asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recently published consensus statement on work-related asthma from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) [1] [endorsed by the Occupational and Environmental Medical Association of Canada, the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) and the Canadian Society of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology and freely available on the website http://chestjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/3_suppl/1S] is the latest in a number of recent statements addressing aspects of this topic. Given the previous statements, some readers may question the merits of yet another relating to this topic, and further ask why it is a consensus statement rather than an evidence-based guideline. As some of the authors of these guidelines, we feel it is important for clinicians to understand how this statement differs from others as it may help in deciding where the advice suggested can be of most help in clinical practice. Work-related asthma contributes to a significant proportion of adult-onset asthma—occupational asthma (OA) has been estimated to be the most common chronic occupational disease in many countries [2] and work-exacerbated asthma (WEA) reportedly occurs in up to 25% of working asthmatics in primary care [3]. Nevertheless, the diagnosis is complicated and controversial; it will not be reached without a high index of suspicion and without asking questions about the temporal relationship of symptoms with work. Not surprisingly, work-related asthma is likely to be under-recognized: workers may be unaware that work exposures can contribute or cause asthma; they may not wish to admit to a work–asthma relationship (because of concern about losing their job). Finally, physicians may not question occupational exposures and differences in severity of asthma symptoms during working days versus weekends or holidays off-work [4].
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 | 0.014 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
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".