Diagnosing occupational asthma: how, how much, how far?: Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagnosing occupational asthma is still a challenge because it is based on a stepwise approach in which the depth of investigative means may vary depending on resources. The authors herewith review the existing investigative means from the approach of outlining controversies and queries. There is no validated clinical questionnaire for diagnosing occupational asthma. Immunological investigation is limited by the lack of standardised extracts for skin-prick testing and specific immunoglobulin E assessments. Criteria for interpretation of changes in peak expiratory flow rates and bronchial responsiveness to pharmacological agents are still open to discussion. It is worth improving the methodology of specific inhalation challenges, either in the laboratory or in the workplace, to facilitate more extensive use of these tests. Validation of new means that assess airway inflammation, such as exhaled nitric oxide and induced sputum, needs to be performed. There is a need to increase the use of these diagnostic tests because the diagnosis is still too often based on "clinical impression".
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".