MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Frequency and determinants of exaggerated bronchoconstriction during shortened methacholine challenge tests in epidemiological and clinical set-ups

2000· article· en· W2132143947 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Troyanov, Malo Jl, André Cartier, Denyse Gautrin

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsBronchoconstrictionMethacholineMedicineInhalationProvocation testAsthmaBronchial hyperresponsivenessEpidemiologyRespiratory systemAnesthesiaInternal medicineRespiratory diseaseLungPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European Respiratory Society guidelines on bronchial provocation testing have proposed time-saving procedures, which may lead to unwanted exaggerated responses. The frequency and determinants of exaggerated bronchoconstriction in response to methacholine inhalation testing in clinical and epidemiological settings have not been assessed. The authors evaluated: 1) the prevalence of exaggerated bronchoconstriction, 2) its relation to time-saving measures (starting methacholine concentration and skipping concentrations); and 3) associations between such reactions and risk factors, respiratory symptoms and/or lung function parameters. Clinical (n=408) and epidemiological (n=711) groups were included. Exaggerated bronchoconstriction was defined as either a fall > or =20% following saline or a > or =30% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) after methacholine inhalations. Cases were compared with two groups of subjects: 1) with measurable bronchial responsiveness (MBR); and 2) without MBR. In the epidemiological group, 84 subjects (12%) presented exaggerated bronchoconstriction. Skipped concentrations accounted for an exaggerated bronchoconstriction in 18 of these. In the clinical group, 41 subjects (10%) experienced exaggerated reactions. Skipped concentrations accounted for an exaggerated bronchoconstriction in five of these. The provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV1 values were marginally lower in subjects with exaggerated bronchoconstriction. Questionnaire analysis in epidemiological subjects showed some symptoms of asthma and rhinitis to be more prevalent in cases than in subjects without MBR. In conclusion, methacholine inhalation tests with time-saving measures result in a 10% risk of exaggerated bronchoconstriction as defined in this study and bronchial responsiveness is more prominent in subjects with exaggerated bronchoconstriction.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations37
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory Journal→Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→