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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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