MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115472214 · doi:10.1164/rccm.200312-1749oc

Recovery of Methacholine Responsiveness after End of Exposure in Occupational Asthma

2004· article· en· W2115472214 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Luc Malo, Heberto Ghezzo

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational exposure and asthma
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMethacholineAsthmaAnesthesiaInternal medicineRespiratory diseaseLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent data suggest that responsiveness to methacholine continues to improve 2 and more years after cessation of exposure to agents causing occupational asthma (OA). The goal of this study was to characterize further the curve of improvement to methacholine responsiveness in subjects with OA. Eighty subjects with confirmed OA who had at least two assessments of a provocative concentration of histamine causing a 20% drop in FEV(1) (PC(20)) and were seen for at least 2 years after cessation of exposure. The shape of recovery of PC(20) was assessed by CARMA (James K. Lindsey, Liège, Belgium) analysis. Slopes of recovery were compared in the first 2.5 years in 55 subjects and from 2.5 years until the end of observation in 56 subjects. Recovery curves showed progressive improvements in PC(20) significantly influenced by time lapse since end of exposure, sex, baseline PC(20), and FEV(1). The slopes of recovery were significantly different from zero both for the first 2.5 years after cessation of exposure (0.27 +/- 0.05 SEM natural logarithm of PC(20) per year) and later (0.09 +/- 0.008 SEM natural logarithm of PC(20) per year), with the slope significantly steeper for the first 2.5 years. This study shows that improvement in responsiveness to methacholine continues for years after cessation of exposure but that the improvement is more rapid in the first 2.5 years.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations74
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicOccupational exposure and asthmaFrench-language works237,207