Biomarkers of Airway Acidity and Oxidative Stress in Exhaled Breath Condensate from Grain Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Grain workers report adverse respiratory symptoms due to exposures to grain dust and endotoxin. Studies have shown that biomarkers in exhaled breath condensate (EBC) vary with the severity of airway inflammation. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to evaluate biomarkers of airway acidity (pH and ammonium [NH(4)(+)]) and oxidative stress (8-isoprostane) in the EBC of grain workers. METHODS: A total of 75 workers from 5 terminal elevators participated. In addition to EBC sampling, exposure monitoring for inhalable grain dust and endotoxin was performed; spirometry, allergy testing, and a respiratory questionnaire derived from that of the American Thoracic Society were administered. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Dust and endotoxin levels ranged from 0.010 to 13 mg/m(3) (median, 1.0) and 8.1 to 11,000 endotoxin units/m(3) (median, 610) respectively. EBC pH values varied from 4.3 to 8.2 (median, 7.9); NH(4)(+) values from 22 to 2,400 microM (median, 420); and 8-isoprostane values from 1.3 to 45 pg/ml (median, 11). Univariate and multivariable analyses revealed a consistent effect of cumulative smoking and obesity with decreased pH and NH(4)(+), and intensity of grain dust and endotoxin with increased 8-isoprostane. Duration of work on the test day was associated with decreased pH and NH(4)(+), whereas duration of employment in the industry was associated with decreased 8-isoprostane. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic exposures are associated with airway acidity, whereas acute exposures are more closely associated with oxidative stress. These results suggest that the collection of EBC may contribute to predicting the pathological state of the airways of workers exposed to acute and chronic factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".