Outcome of work-related asthma exacerbations in Quebec and Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are differences in the management of workers with work-related asthma within Canadian provinces. In Quebec, the compensation of a case of occupational asthma is usually based on the positivity of a specific inhalation challenge, whereas in Ontario, the diagnosis is usually based on serial peak expiratory flow (PEF), provocative methacholine concentration causing a 20% decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (PC20) monitoring at and away from work, and specific skin-prick tests (that is, less often on specific inhalation challenges) [1]. We aimed: 1) to compare the delay between the onset of work-related asthma symptoms and the diagnosis of occupational asthma and work-exacerbated asthma between Quebec and Ontario; and 2) to assess and compare the healthcare utilisation in subjects with occupational asthma and work-exacerbated asthma between the provinces before and after the first assessment in two tertiary clinics in Quebec and Ontario that specialise in work-related asthma. Diagnosing work-related asthma decreased asthma-related healthcare utilisation in Quebec and Ontario <http://ow.ly/CFrPk> Provincial population-based administrative data were made available for record linkage of the study populations. In Ontario, record linkage was conducted by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and in Quebec, the Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec. The opinions, results, and conclusions reported in this paper are those of the authors and are independent of these agencies: The authors want to thank Suzanne Dostaler for her administrative support of the AllerGen NCE grant.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".