Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The objective of this study was to review all new causes of well documented immunologic occupational asthma (IOA) published in the English and French medical literature between January 2012 and mid-2014. RECENT FINDINGS: Ten case reports of new causes of IOA were reported during that period. The diagnosis was either confirmed by specific inhalation challenges (n = 5) or a combination of peak expiratory flow monitoring at and off work, confirmation of specific sensitisation, and asthma (n = 3). These involved both high (mites contaminating cured ham, various enzymes used as detergents and food additives, aquarium fish food, and orange allergens) and low-molecular-weight agents (spruce wood dust, a biocide, and an halogenated platinum compound used in cytotoxic drugs). Furthermore, eight studies reported cases of IOA with agents already known as airway sensitizers but in working environments that were unusual and reported for the first time. SUMMARY: There are more than 400 known causes of IOA and the list grows continuously with the development of new technologies and better recognition of the diagnosis by physicians. IgE-mediated sensitization was confirmed in all new cases involving high-molecular-weight agents and in two of the three new cases involving low-molecular-weight agents. Symptoms of rhinitis were often associated with both types of agents. Physicians should stay alert and suspect occupational asthma in any adult with new-onset asthma or with newly uncontrolled asthma.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".