L’expectoration induite, outil de diagnostic de l’asthme professionnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diagnosis of occupational asthma relies mainly on the demonstration of changes in airway calibre and airway responsiveness after exposure to occupational agents in the laboratory or at the workplace. However, spirometry or peak expiratory flow measurements may be open to misinterpretation when they are not performed optimally. As in non-occupational asthma, airway inflammation is one of the main characteristics of occupational asthma. Induced sputum, a non invasive method to assess airway inflammation, has been successfully used in the management of asthma. This article reviews the studies that have investigated and characterized the changes in sputum cell counts occurring in subjects with occupational asthma after exposure to occupational agents in the laboratory or at the workplace in order to assess the place of induced sputum in the investigation of occupational asthma. It also reviews the use of induced sputum during the follow-up of workers with occupational asthma after removal from exposure. This article also describes a new condition identified thanks to the use of induced sputum : occupational eosinophilic bronchitis. In conclusion, induced sputum is a useful tool in the investigation of occupational asthma. Its use on a regular basis in the investigation of occupational asthma also allows for the possibility of diagnosis of overlooked conditions such as occupational eosinophilic bronchitis. Its role in the surveillance of workers at risk to develop occupational asthma remains to be determined.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".