MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Provocative Dose of Methacholine Causing a 20% Drop in FEV1 Should Be Used to Interpret Methacholine Challenge Tests with Modern Nebulizers

2015· article· en· W2124904811 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sharon Dell, Sundeep S. Bola, Richard Foty, Laura Marshall, Kathleen Nelligan, Allan L. Coates

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethacholineNebulizerMedicineInhalationAnesthesiaAsthmaBronchial hyperresponsivenessRespiratory diseaseInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: The American Thoracic Society guidelines (1999) for methacholine challenge tests (MCTs) using the 2-minute tidal breathing protocol were developed for the now-obsolete English-Wright (EW) nebulizer. In addition, the guideline recommendation to use the provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% drop in FEV1 (PC20) rather than the provocative dose of methacholine causing a 20% drop in FEV1 (PD20) for determining the level of bronchial hyperresponsiveness has been challenged. OBJECTIVES: To determine if cumulative dose or concentration of methacholine delivered to the airways is the determinant for airway responsiveness and to validate use of the AeroEclipse* II BAN (Aero; Trudell Medical International, London, ON, Canada) nebulizer compared with use of the reference standard EW nebulizer. METHODS: Subjects with asthma (10-18 yr old) participated in randomized, controlled cross-over experiments comparing four MCT protocols using standard methacholine concentrations, but varying: (1) methacholine starting concentration (testing for cumulative effect); (2) nebulizer (EW versus Aero); and (3) inhalation time. PD20 was calculated using nebulizer output rate, inhalation time, and preceding doses delivered. ANOVA analyses were used to compare geometric means of PC20 and PD20 between protocols. RESULTS: A total of 32 subjects (17 male) participated. PC20 differed when starting concentration varied (0.46 vs. 0.80 mg/ml; P<0.0001), whereas PD20 did not (0.06 vs. 0.08 mg). PC20 differed with the EW versus the Aero nebulzer with 30-second inhalation (1.19 vs. 0.43 mg/ml; P=0.0006) and the EW versus the Aero nebulizer with 20-second inhalation (1.91 vs. 0.89 mg/ml; P=0.0027), whereas PD20 did not (0.07 vs. 0.06 mg and 0.11 vs. 0.09 mg, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In MCTs, the cumulative dose (PD20), not the PC20, determines bronchial responsiveness. Modern nebulizers may be used for the test if clinical interpretation is based on PD20. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01288482).

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations46
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207