MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Utilization of pulmonary function measurements in the assessment of occupational asthma

2002· review· en· W2090914940 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Luc Malo

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational exposure and asthma
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpirometryGold standard (test)AsthmaLung functionPulmonary function testingOccupational asthmaInhalationIntensive care medicineEpidemiologyPhysical therapyLungInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lung function assessments that include spirometry and bronchial responsiveness are now often coupled to immunological assessment and an evaluation of inflammation in the investigation of occupational asthma. For diagnostic purposes, evidence points out that specific inhalation challenges are the gold standard, as previously suspected. In the epidemiological setting, both spirometry and bronchial responsiveness are feasible and safe. The role of lung function assessments in surveillance programmes is still open to discussion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.389
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.122 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Allergy and Clinical ImmunologySame topicOccupational exposure and asthmaFrench-language works237,207